Appeal of ELIZABETH DUNN and HAROLD MITCHELL

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute  	) June 22, 1999
Between     				)
      					)
ELIZABETH R. DUNN   			)
      					)
       and     				)
      					)
HAROLD MITCHELL   			) P.S. Docket No. MD 99-232


APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT
   ELIZABETH DUNN:   			None

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT
   HAROLD MITCHELL:   			None

INITIAL DECISION

This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM 7, 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 is that addressed to Janice Patsy Colson Mitchell, P.O. Box 176, Raleigh, IL 62977-0176. The mail is currently being held by the Raleigh, Illinois Postmaster.

Neither party has submitted a sworn statement, or anything else, in support of their position, as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. The following findings of fact are based on the material forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, Chicago Office.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Janice Patsy Colson Mitchell is deceased. Elizabeth Dunn is her daughter. Harold Mitchell is her husband. (Postmaster's note).

2. Harold Mitchell opened Post Office Box 176 on February 8, 1995, in the name of himself and Janice Colson, the decedent. (PS Form 1093).

3. Janice Mitchell, the decedent, executed a Last Will and Testament on March 30, 1998, leaving her entire estate to her daughters, Elizabeth Dunn and Julie Moore, and also naming her two daughters Co-Executors.

4. On March 31, 1999, Elizabeth Dunn submitted a PS Form 3575, Change of Address Form, directing that mail addressed to Janice or Patsy Mitchell at P.O. Box 176 be forwarded to 470 Tipple Road, Carrier Mills, IL 62917.

5. On April 7, 1999, Harold Mitchell submitted a PS Form 3575, directing that the disputed mail be delivered to P.O. Box 176.

DECISION

According to the postmaster's forwarding note, Harold Mitchell claims the will is invalid. However, there is nothing on the face of the copy of the will in the case file to indicate that it is not valid, so I shall assume that it is valid. Section D042.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM Issue 54, January 10, 1999) provides that mail addressed to deceased persons,

"...may be received at the address of the deceased by anyone who would normally receive the addressee's mail at that address. It may also be forwarded to a different address, such as that of an appointed executor or administrator, if an order of request is filed at the post office."

In this case, it appears that either of the two disputants might be entitled to the mail under this section. It has been our practice, however, to direct delivery of a deceased person's mail to a duly appointed executor, if the executor has filed a change-of-address order. Accordingly, the mail should be delivered to Elizabeth Dunn.

This decision deals only with delivery of the mail, not ownership of it. If Ms. Dunn receives mail that is clearly intended for Mr. Mitchell, it is her responsibility to forward it to him.

The attached Delivery Order should be issued.

						Bruce R. Houston
						Chief Administrative Law Judge