In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between:

HAZEL TADLOCK
and
Rosalie Rowsey

P. S. Docket No. MD-21

APPEARANCE FOR HAZEL TADLOCK:
Charles W. King, Esq.
6245 East Broadway – Suite 510
Tucson, Arizona  85711-4097

APPEARANCE FOR ROSALIE ROWSEY:
Rosalie Rowsey, pro se
11072 San Pablo Ave., #356
El Cerrito, CA  94530-2325

INITIAL DECISION

            This mail dispute proceeding was docketed under Domestic Mail Manual §153.72, which requires Regional Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to this Department for decision.  Both disputants filed written submittals under 39 C.F.R. §965.5 and Hazel Tadlock filed comments dated June 8, 13 and 16, 1988.  The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the submittals, comments, and exhibits attached thereto:

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Disputant Hazel Tadlock’s husband died in August of 1987.  Thereafter, her attorney filed for a Conservatorship for her in California.  On November 8, 1987, Ms. Tadlock moved to Arizona.

            2.  On December 29, 1987, the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County (Case No. 69634) issued Letters of Temporary Conservatorship to Disputant Rosalie Rowsey for the estate of Hazel Tadlock.  The appointment will terminate when a judgment is rendered, or a settlement effectuated, in the pending action contesting the conservatorship.  The trial is now set for September 19, 1988.  Rowsey was also appointed Temporary Conservator of the “person” of Hazel Tadlock, but only to the limited extent of arranging for certain psychological and medical examinations.

            3.  Under California law, a conservator of the “estate” may be appointed for a person who is substantially unable to manage his or her own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence.  Cal. Probate Code § 1801 (b).

            4.  Hazel Tadlock is disputing the appointment of a conservator on her behalf, and intends to submit evidence in California court to prove that she is competent to handle her own financial and personal affairs.  She introduced some of this evidence in the instant case.  She also alleges that the Conservator has failed to properly execute her duties and has caused the Conservatee a financial loss.

            5.  However, at the present time, Rosalie Rowsey has a valid appointment under California law as Temporary Conservator of the estate, and to a limited extent the “person” of Hazel Tadlock.  There is no probative evidence that the California court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.  The fact that Ms. Tadlock moved out of the state before the effective date of the appointment of the Temporary Conservator had no effect on the court’s jurisdiction.  In this regard, it is concluded that jurisdiction had already attached, because there is no evidence or allegation that she was not properly notified or that other California procedures were not followed.  In fact, Hazel Tadlock appeared by counsel Paul D. LeVeque at a hearing on December 3, 1987 on a application for preliminary injunction against Lewis and Giselle Tadlock and Claudia Kelly in the state of conservatorship case (Superior Court No. 69634).

            6.  Hazel Tadlock has now filed for the appointment of a Permanent Conservator in Arizona, but no action has been taken by the Arizona court.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

            1.  The Domestic Mail Manual provides that where a person has been legally declared incompetent, his mail may be delivered under the order of his conservator.  DMM §153.23.  Although Hazel Tadlock has not technically been declared “incompetent,” she is temporarily considered by the California Superior Court to be substantially unable to manage her own financial resources or to resist fraud or undue influence.  California Probate Code § 1801(b).  Accordingly, the Court appointed Rosalie Rowsey as Temporary Conservator of Tadlock’s estate.

            2.  The Postal Service must follow the order of a state court in the appointment of a conservator.  Although Tadlock may challenge the appointment of any conservator at the upcoming state hearing, in the interim the Postal Service must accept the appointment of the Temporary Conservator until it is terminated by the state court.  Accordingly, Ms. Tadlock’s arguments concerning her own competency and the alleged inadequacies and failures of her Temporary Conservator will not be considered here.  Moreover, the evidence of record does not support Tadlock’s contention, raised for the first time in her final submission, that the California court lacked jurisdiction due to her absence from the state when the appointment of the Temporary Conservator became effective.

            3.  In order to ensure that mail pertaining to the conservatee’s financial affairs are timely received by the Temporary Conservator, it is necessary to have all of Hazel Tadlock’s mail delivered in accordance with the order of the Temporary Conservator, Rosalie Rowsey.  This includes mail addressed to Hazel Tadlock at P. O. Box 1034 or 1262 Taylor Road, Bethel Island, CA  94511.  Any personal mail addressed to Hazel Tadlock not relating to the duties o the Temporary Conservator must be sent by Ms. Rowsey to Hazel Tadlock.

Randolph D. Mason
Administrative Law Judge