May 16, 2002
In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between
GORDON H. BROOKS
and
JOHN W. EHRHARDT
P.S. Docket No. MD 02-62
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT: GORDON H. BROOKS:
Frank E. Sisson, III, Esq.
180 Post Road East, Suite 202
P. O. Box 5228
Westport, CT 06881-5228
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT: JOHN W. EHRHARDT
John W. Ehrhardt, Ph.D.
157 Old Huckleberry Road
Wilton, CT 06897-2810
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
On April 3, 2002, an Initial Decision was issued in which an Administrative Law Judge concluded that mail addressed to Executive Resource Group, Inc., Executive Resource Group, ERG, ERGResource, ERGResearch, any name including the initials "ERG", and/or any mail in care of Executive Research Group at 35 Bank Street, New Canaan, CT 06840-6202 is to be delivered as directed by Disputant Gordon H. Brooks. Disputant John W. Ehrhardt, Ph.D. has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision in which he claims that the mail in dispute should be delivered in accordance with a state superior court order appointing a temporary receiver to conduct the business of Executive Resource Group, Inc. or, in the alternative, that the Initial Decision should be reversed or suspended until the issue of control of the corporation is finally resolved by the state court. Disputant Brooks opposes the appeal.
Dr. Ehrhardt's appeal includes an affidavit and additional evidence he claims should be considered on appeal because he was not properly notified of his rights in this proceeding. The Notice of Docketing was not served on Dr. Ehrhardt personally, but was served on an attorney who had previously notified the New Canaan, CT Postmaster that he represented Dr. Ehrhardt. Although Dr. Ehrhardt argues that "neither USPS nor any attorney now or formerly engaged by me ever informed me that I could or should file some response," where a disputant is initially represented by an attorney in a mail dispute, it is the disputant's responsibility to notify the Judicial Officer if that representation changes.[1] Nonetheless, because of the existence of a court order and the possibility that Dr. Ehrhardt was entirely unaware of the pendency of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, the Judicial Officer has exercised his discretion to review the Initial Decision and consider the additional evidence presented by Dr. Ehrhardt.
After a review of the entire record, it is concluded that Dr. Ehrhardt's appeal does not establish that the Administrative Law Judge's Initial Decision is erroneous as a matter of fact or law. The record reflects, and Dr. Ehrhardt has not contested, that Mr. Brooks has the title of president of the corporation. Under the Postal Operations Manual, absent a court order,[2] mail addressed to a corporation is to be "delivered according to the order of the organization's president or equivalent official."[3] Although Disputant Ehrhardt may possess a 50% ownership interest in the corporation, as between Mr. Brooks and him, Mr. Brooks, by virtue of his title as president, is entitled to direct delivery of the corporation's mail.
However, a court order has been issued appointing a temporary receiver to conduct the business of the corporation. Under such circumstances the mail in dispute would normally be delivered to the court appointed receiver rather than the corporation's president. Mr. Brooks argues that he continues to control the operations of the corporation because the court appointed receiver has not accepted the appointment. As it is unclear whether the receiver has assumed the appointed duties, the issuance of a final order will be suspended 10 days from the date of receipt of this decision to allow the disputants an opportunity to present an authenticated court document or an affidavit from the receiver establishing that the receiver has accepted appointment, is currently running the business and is entitled to receive the corporation's mail. The document should also include the receiver's name and the address to which the corporation's mail should be delivered. Absent
such evidence, the mail in dispute will be delivered in accordance with the direction of Mr. Brooks.
Finally, Dr. Ehrhardt requests that mail addressed to the corporation at 487 Danbury Road, Wilton, CT 06897-2126 be placed in dispute and mail addressed
personally to either John Ehrhardt or M.V. Ehrhardt at the Bank Street address be delivered as addressed. The mail to the Danbury Road address was not originally considered to be in dispute. Because Mr. Brooks is entitled to receive the corporation's mail until delivery of the mail is otherwise directed by court order, mail to the Danbury Road address is to continue to be delivered as addressed. However, mail addressed solely to John Ehrhardt or M.V. Ehrhardt at the Bank Street address is not in dispute and should be delivered as addressed. Any mail to the Bank Street address which includes any name in dispute is to continue to be held pending further order of the Judicial Officer.
James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer
May 16, 2002
TO THE POSTMASTER AT: NEW CANAAN, CT 06840-9998
RE: The Mail Dispute Between
GORDON H. BROOKS
and
JOHN W. EHRHARDT
P. S. Docket No. MD 02-62
INTERIM ORDER
All mail, which is currently being held or hereafter received, addressed solely to the name John Ehrhardt or M.V. Ehrhardt, 35 Bank Street, New Canaan, CT 06840-6202 is to be delivered as addressed. All other mail, which is currently being held or hereafter received, which is addressed to or includes or is in care of the names Executive Resource Group, Inc., Executive Resource Group, ERG, ERGResource, or ERGResearch is to continue to be held pending further order of the Judicial Officer.
James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer
[1] See Christian Duru and Femmy Akene, P.S. Docket No. MD 00-490 (P.S.D. March 21, 2001).
[2] Postal Operations Manual (POM) §616.3 requires that "[w]hen the same mail is claimed by different persons, and a court decides to whom delivery should be made, the mail is delivered according to the court order" (POM 8, July 16, 1998 (with Postal Bulletin Revisions through Dec. 27, 2001)). See Paula A. Sheppard and Lisa M. Signorelli, P.S. Docket No. MD 97-190 (P.S.D. Aug. 15, 1997).