In the Matter of the Dispute Between:

RUTH M. BARIL
and
ROY D. LEHMANN

PS Docket No. MD-84

Thompson, Joran, B, Administrative Judge

APPEARANCE FOR RUTH M. BARIL: Ruth M. Baril, pro se, 925
N. Clinton, Dallas, TX 75208-3610

APPEARANCE FOR ROY D. LEHMANN: Roy D. Lehmann, pro se, Route
1, Box 525, Copperas Cove, TX 76522-9715

INITIAL DEICSION

This mail dispute was forwarded to this office for resolution pursuant to Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § 153.72 and 39 C.F.R. Part 965. The parties dispute the right to delivery of mail addressed to Lehmann Heritage Corporation. Each claim to be president of the corporation. The Findings are based on submittals of the parties and the documents with the transmittal letter of April 19, 1990, from the Office of Field Legal Services, Southern Regional Office, Memphis, TN.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Lehmann Heritage Corporation is a family-owned corporation with sisters Ruth M. Baril and Ann J. Laird each owning 33 shares and brother Roy D. Lehmann owning 34 shares. Prior to disagreements between disputant Baril and disputant Lehmann which led to this mail dispute, Mr. Lehmann was president, treasurer, and a director of the corporation; Ms. Baril was vice-president and a director.

2. In shareholder and director meetings of March 17 and 19, 1990, respectively, Mr. Lehmann took actions as a shareholder and as a director of the corporation which purported to remove Ms. Baril from her officer and director positions, remove Magda Kramen as a director, and to elect himself to all of the officer positions.

3. On April 2, 1990, a special board of director's meeting was held by Ms. Baril and Ms. Kramen purporting to remove Mr. Lehmann as president and treasurer of the corporation and to elect Ms. Baril to those positions.

4. The only evidence pertaining to meeting requirements under the corporation's charter and bylaws is reflected in letters from each disputant's attorney. Ms. Baril's attorney in a letter dated April 5, 1990, to Mr. Lehmann gave his opinion that there needed to be a quorum of at least one-half of the issued and outstanding voting stock (of 100 shares) for a valid corporate meeting. In his opinion, the meetings held by Mr. Lehmann did not meet that requirement. Mr. Lehmann's attorney in a letter dated May 1, 1990, to Ms. Baril's attorney stated that Ms. Baril had "abdicated any vote on the management of the corporation" when she walked out of the shareholders' meeting of March 17, 1990. In his opinion, actions taken by Ms. Baril in the meeting of April 2, 1990, "are null and void."

5. Mr. Lehmann, as president of the corporation, had obtained Box 525, at Route 1, Copperas Cove, TX 76522, in the name of the corporation at least since January 17, 1985. By letter dated April 4, 1990, to the Postmaster in Copperas Cove, Ms. Baril reported that Mr. Lehmann was no longer an officer of the corporation and requested that the corporation's mail be delivered to 925 N. Clinton, Dallas, TX 75208, and that Mr. Lehmann not be allowed to pick up any of the corporation's mail. When informal attempts by Postal Service officials to have the parties resolve their dispute were unsuccessful, their mail dispute was transmitted to this office for resolution.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The ownership of any mail and other legal rights between the parties are not determined by this mail dispute resolution. The purpose of these proceedings is to enable the Postal Service to carry out its mail delivery responsibilities in the absence of any controlling agreement of the parties or a court order pertaining to the delivery of the mail.

2. As provided by DMM § 153.51, mail addressed to a corporation is delivered as addressed or to an authorized agent. Mail is delivered in accordance with the order of the president of the corporation where, as here, there is disagreement among corporate officers and others connected with the corporation.

3. The evidence of record does not support Ms. Baril's position that she is now the president of the corporation as the only evidence reflecting the requirements for corporate meetings, including the letter of her own attorney, shows that the April 2, 1990, meeting in which she and another attempted to remove Mr. Lehmann as president was not legally constituted.

4. Therefore, for the purpose of this proceeding, Mr. Lehmann is recognized as the president of the corporation and a mail delivery instruction should be issued that mail be delivered in accordance with his directions.