This decision has been redacted by Order of the Judicial Officer.

 

February 12, 2003

 

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

 

JAMIE D. T (redacted)

 

and

 

DIMITRIOS T (redacted)

 

P.S. Docket No.  MD 02-535

 

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JAMIE D. T(redacted):

Barbara M. Hardin, Esq.

 

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT DIMITRIOS T(redacted):

Dimitrios T(redacted)

 

INITIAL DECISION

 

This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual, Issue 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 Mr. and Mrs. T(redacted), Jamie and Dimitrios T(redacted), Jamie and Jim T(redacted) or J. T(redacted) at (redacted).  The (redacted) Postmaster is holding the mail.

Disputant Jamie T(redacted) submitted a sworn statement and documents in support of her claim to the mail.  Mr. T(redacted) requested a 30-day extension of the time allowed for submissions, but the request was denied.  However, Mr. T(redacted) included a statement and supporting documents in his comments to Ms. T(redacted)’s submission.  The following findings of fact are based on Ms. T(redacted)’s submission, Mr. T(redacted)’s response to her submission and documents the parties previously filed with the (redacted) Post Office, which documents have been forwarded to this office.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Jamie T(redacted) has exclusive possession of the residence at (redacted), and the court has ordered Dimitrios T(redacted) to stay away from Ms. T(redacted) and the residence (Circuit Court Orders (redacted)).

            2.  Postal Service rules governing delivery of jointly-addressed mail provide,

“Where mail is jointly addressed (for example, ‘Mr. and Mrs. John Doe’ or ‘John and Jane Doe’), neither party is entitled to control delivery of such mail over the objection of the other.  Jointly addressed mail is delivered as addressed by the sender, as long as one of the addressees can receive it there.”

 

(POM Section 613.1).

 

            3.  Additionally, for mail addressed to husbands or wives,

“Neither party may control delivery of mail addressed to the other.  In the absence of delivery instructions, the mail must be delivered as addressed by the sender.”

 

(POM Section 613.2).

 

            4.  Through competing change-of-address orders and direct contact with postal officials, both disputants have claimed entitlement to delivery of the disputed mail.

DECISION

            Disputant Jamie T(redacted) resides at and has exclusive control of the residence at the disputed address (Finding 1).  As she can receive the mail at the disputed address, under Section 613.1 of the Postal Operations Manual (Finding 2), she is entitled to receive the mail jointly addressed to her and Disputant Dimitrios T(redacted) at the residence.  Accordingly, mail addressed to Mr. and Mrs. T(redacted), Jamie and Dimitrios T(redacted) or Jamie and Jim T(redacted) at the (redacted) address should be delivered as addressed.

            Mail addressed to J. T(redacted) could be intended for either Ms. Jamie T(redacted) or Mr. Dimitrios T(redacted), who goes by “Jim.”  Both disputants have sought that mail and, under section 613.2 of the Postal Operations Manual, neither may control delivery of mail addressed to the other.  Lacking effective delivery instructions, the mail must be delivered as addressed by the sender.  (Finding 3).  Additionally, since Mr. T(redacted) has been barred from the home since at least November 2002 (Finding 1) and has had time to notify correspondents of that fact, it is likely that those sending mail to J. T (redacted) at the disputed address intend that it be delivered to Ms. Jamie T(redacted).  Accordingly, mail addressed to J. T (redacted) at the (redacted) address should be delivered as addressed.

            The Postal Service would comply with a court order regarding delivery of the mail (POM Section 616.3).  If Ms. T(redacted) receives mail that is clearly intended for Mr. T (redacted), she is to forward that mail to him.

The Judicial Officer should issue an Order to the (redacted) Postmaster directing that the disputed mail be delivered as addressed.[1]

 

                                                                        Norman D. Menegat

                                                                        Administrative Judge


[1] Mr. T (redacted) asserts that mail has been taken from his post office box, (redacted).  However, only mail addressed to (redacted) is at issue in this proceeding, and mail to P.O. Box (redacted) will not be affected by an Order issued in this case.