In the Matter of a Mail Dispute		) April 7, 1997
Between					)
					)
HARRY C. PRATT				)
					)
     and				)
					)
W.A. SMITH, JR.				) P.S. Docket No. MD 97-96

APPEARANCE FOR MR. PRATT:		Harry C. Pratt
					Pratt, Davis & Company
					1023 Manatee Avenue
					Bradenton, FL 34205-7816

APPEARANCE FOR MR. SMITH:		W. A. Smith, Jr.
					1301 9th Avenue, West
					Bradenton, FL 34205

This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM7, August 1, 1996) Section 616.21, which requires the Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution. The mail in dispute, which is addressed to P.O. Box 1518, Bradenton, FL 34206-1518,

is being delivered to Mary P. Derome while this dispute is pending, per agreement of the parties. (See Order of March 18, 1997).

Mr. Smith submitted a sworn statement in support of his claim, as required by 39 C.F.R. 965.5. Mr. Pratt did not, although he had earlier submitted documents to the postmaster. The following findings of fact are based on all the materials submitted by the parties, including those forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, Atlanta Office.

1. Disputants Pratt and Smith, along with Harold C. Johnson, entered into a Partnership Agreement on February 20, 1969, for the purpose of practicing as certified public accountants under the name "Harry C. Pratt & Company."

2. Paragraph 7 of this agreement named Mr. Pratt as the "Managing Partner," giving him "control with respect to any aspect of the management and conduct of the partnership and business . . .."

3. There are no documents in the file that specifically show that the partnership was dissolved, and Mr. Smith's submission does not comment on the vitality of the partnership agreement, which was submitted to the postmaster by Mr. Pratt in support of his claim. However, other documents suggest that Pratt and Smith later formed a corporation. There are documents on letterhead titled, "Pratt, Smith & Company, Chartered."⁽¹⁾ The term "Chartered" identifies a Professional Service Corporation under Florida law.⁽²⁾ A State of Florida Form titled "Profit Corporation Annual Report 1997," submitted to the postmaster by Mr. Smith, says that Pratt, Smith & Company, Chartered, was incorporated on June 27, 1986. Mr. Smith signed this 1997 form as "President," and argues that the letters "PD" above his name on the list of officers and directors prove he is the president. On the other hand, he did not submit Articles of Incorporation or any other documents pertinent to the creation of the corporation in 1986, or that show who the officers are.

4. The disputants' accounting firm, which received mail at P.O. Box 1518, began the process of disbanding in January 1997.⁽³⁾ Each disputant wished to have the lock changed and to be given the only key to the box.

In his sworn statement, Mr. Smith says he would be agreeable to a coin toss. In view of the scanty information in this file, that might be an appropriate solution, but it is an option available only to the parties, not to the Judge. A general rule regarding business mail disputes is found in the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) D042.4.1:

		All mail addressed to a governmental or nongovernmental 
		organization . . . is delivered to the organization, . . ..  If	
		disagreement arises where any such mail should be 
		delivered, it must be delivered under the order of the 
		organization's president or equivalent official.

If the partnership agreement were still in effect, Mr. Pratt would clearly be the "equivalent official." Based on the documents discussed in paragraph 3, however, it is likely that the partnership agreement no longer accurately describes the relationship of the parties.

Our Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. 965.7, state that a party who fails to file a submittal as required by 965.5 may be held in default, and that this provides a basis for an order directing delivery of mail to the other party. I find that rule, along with doubt that the partnership agreement was still in effect when this dispute arose, to be sufficient reason to decide that the mail should be delivered as directed by Mr. Smith.

This decision deals only with delivery of the mail. It does not determine ownership of the mail, nor does it resolve any underlying business dispute between the parties. If Mr. Smith receives mail that is intended for Mr. Pratt, it is his responsibility to forward that mail. If either party obtains a court order directing delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that mail will be delivered in accordance with such an order. DMM D042.6.3.

The attached delivery order should be issued.

						Bruce R. Houston
						Chief Administrative Law Judge

² West's Florida Statues Annotated, 621.12.

³ Apparently, they have created separate firms, as their most recent letterheads are "Pratt, Davis and Company, P.A." from Mr. Pratt, and "Bert Smith, C.P.A., Chartered," from Mr. Smith.