September 7, 2004

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

PATRICK DWYER

and

MICHAEL A. BARLOW

P.S. Docket No. MD 04-82

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT PATRICK DWYER:

Patrick Dwyer

3230 Somerset Drive

Jeffersonton, VA 22724-1783

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT MICHAEL A. BARLOW:

Michael A. Barlow

34 Casey Lane

Madison, VA 22727-2830

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

On July 23, 2004, an Initial Decision was issued in which an Administrative Law Judge concluded that all mail addressed to Dynamic Applications and Technology Associates Systems, Inc., or DATA Systems, Inc., at P.O. Box 99, Madison, VA 22727-0099 should be delivered as directed by Disputant Patrick Dwyer. Disputant Michael A. Barlow filed an appeal from the Initial Decision, claiming he is entitled to direct delivery of the mail as the current president of Dynamic Applications and Technology Associates Systems, Inc. Disputant Dwyer opposes the appeal, but suggests the mail be divided between the parties based on the date the corporation was officially reinstated by the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission (hereinafter State Commission). The Judicial Officer has determined to exercise his discretion to grant review of the Initial Decision on appeal as authorized by 39 C.F.R. § 965.12 and to grant the appeal in part and to modify the Initial Decision as hereafter stated.

Background

In the Initial Decision, the Administrative Law Judge found that Disputant Dwyer was the president of Dynamic Applications and Technology Associates Systems, Inc, also known as DATA Systems, Inc., and that as president, he rented P.O. Box 99 in the name of the corporation. On or about April 30, 2004, Disputant Dwyer purportedly dissolved the corporation, and Disputant Barlow thereafter purportedly founded two new corporations with the same names. Subsequently, Disputant Barlow filed papers with the State Commission to have the original corporation reinstated with him as president. By order of the State Commission, the corporation was reinstated effective July 7, 2004.

Discussion

Although Disputant Barlow claims he should be allowed to direct delivery of all of the mail in dispute because Disputant Dwyer was removed as president of the organization prior to April 30, 2004, he has presented no persuasive evidence to support this contention. The record supports the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Disputant Dwyer was president of the corporation at the time of the purported dissolution and was thereby entitled to direct delivery of the corporation’s mail. However, Disputant Dwyer concedes that Disputant Barlow is the current president of the reinstated corporation and that he (Disputant Dwyer) does not intend to pursue whatever legal remedies he may have to reassert his control over the corporation. As Disputant Barlow’s appeal does not establish that he is entitled to obtain delivery of the disputed mail prior to the date of reinstatement of the corporation and the reinstated corporation, with Disputant Barlow as president, is the most likely intended recipient of mail postmarked after reinstatement, the mail should be divided between the parties based on the reinstatement date. Therefore, any mail postmarked prior to July 7, 2004 is to be delivered as directed by Disputant Dwyer. Any mail postmarked on or after July 7, 2004 is to be delivered as directed by Disputant Barlow.

The parties are reminded that the purpose of a mail dispute proceeding is to determine the person or organization entitled to receive delivery of the mail, not the ownership of the mail or the right to control access to a post office box.  If either party receives mail intended for the other, that party is responsible for forwarding such mail to the intended recipient.

Accordingly, Disputant Barlow’s appeal is granted in part, and the Initial Decision is modified to provide for the delivery of the disputed mail in accordance with this decision. The Initial Decision, as modified, is the final agency decision as provided in 39 C.F.R. § 965.12.

James A. Cohen

Judicial Officer