October 15, 2002
In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between
JUDY ADAMS
and
NEIL LEWIS
P.S. Docket No. MD 02-434
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JUDY ADAMS:
Judy Adams
4310 Fremont Avenue N
Minneapolis, MN 55412-1345
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT NEIL LEWIS:
Neil Lewis
2410 Irving Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55405-2542
This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM 9, July 2002) (“POM”)) Section 616.21, which requires the chief field counsel to forward certain mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution. The mail in dispute is that addressed to Rose Park LLC and/or Rose Park Management, LLC, at P.O. Box 276, Melrose, MN 56352-0276. The Melrose Postmaster is holding the mail.
Neither party submitted statements or evidence in this proceeding. The following findings of fact are based on documents the parties previously filed with the Melrose Post Office, which documents have been forwarded to this office.
1. The disputants, Judy Adams and Neil Lewis, are co-owners of Rose Park LLC, a company that owns and operates a mobile home park known as Rose Park LLC.[1]
2. In August 2002, Mr. Lewis established a new business, Rose Park Mgmt., LLC, using P.O. Box 276, Melrose, MN 56352-0276, as the company’s mailing address.
3. Also in August 2002, Mr. Lewis notified the residents of Rose Park LLC that he and Ms. Adams were involved in a dispute over ownership of Rose Park LLC. In that notice he asked the residents to send their September and later rent payments to Rose Park Mgmt., LLC, at P.O. Box 276, Melrose, MN 56352-0276, and he provided stamped envelopes so addressed for that purpose.
4. On August 31, 2002, Ms. Adams sent a notice to the Rose Park residents, accusing Mr. Lewis of fraud. In that notice, she asked the residents to “pay rent as always to P.O. Box 582694.”
A primary objective of the rules used to resolve mail disputes is that mail should be delivered consistent with the intent of the senders. In this case, both disputants have made their pleas to the residents regarding the address to which rental payments should be sent. Mr. Lewis has asked that the mail be sent to P.O. Box 276 in Melrose. Ms. Adams has asked residents not to send mail to that address. Residents that choose to send their mail to P.O. Box 276 in Melrose obviously have been persuaded by Mr. Lewis’s arguments and intend that their mail be delivered to the address he controls. Accordingly, the disputed mail should be delivered as addressed.
This decision deals only with delivery of the mail. It does not attempt to decide underlying financial or other disputes between the parties. If either party obtains a court order regarding delivery of the mail, the Postal Service will comply. POM Section 616.3. If Mr. Lewis receives any mail that is clearly intended for Ms. Adams, it is his responsibility to forward that mail to her.
The Judicial Officer should issue an Order to the Melrose Postmaster directing that the disputed mail be delivered as addressed.
Norman D. Menegat