In the Matter of the Mail Dispute Between:

DAVID P. ROBERTS
and
MICHELE IZZO

P. S. Docket No. MD-159

APPEARANCE FOR DAVID ROBERTS:
David P. Roberts, Pro Se
1804 Waldon Court
La Bonne Vie
Sicklerville, NJ 08081-2420

APPEARANCE FOR MICHELE IZZO:
Michele Izzo, Pro Se
571 Greentree Road
Turnersville, NJ 08012-1526

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 comments under §965.6.  Both parties have also submitted additional comments which are rejected as untimely.  Nevertheless, these latter comments have been reviewed, and it is determined that they would not have changed the decision herein.

            The dispute concerns delivery of mail addressed to British American Security Executive Consultants ("B.A.S.E.C.") at P.O. Box 8146, and at 108-M Greentree Road, Turnersville, NJ  08012.  The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon the submittals, timely comments, and exhibits attached thereto:

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.         Disputant David P. Roberts is a private investigator and bodyguard.  In 1989, Electronic Design Concepts, Inc. ("EDC"), located at 571 Greentree Road, Turnersville, NJ 08012, installed a security system at the residence of one of Roberts' clients.

            2.         Disputant Michele Izzo is the President of EDC.

            3.         In January of 1992, Roberts entered into a partnership with EDC and moved into its office at 571 (also referred to as 108-M) Greentree Road, Turnersville, NJ.  In addition to the partnership arrangement, Roberts acted as a management consultant to the corporation.

            4.         The partnership was a bodyguard/private investigator business known as British American Security Executive Consultants ("B.A.S.E.C.").  In connection with Roberts' consultations to his clients on security matters, it was agreed that Roberts would recommend the purchase of security systems from EDC.  Roberts had previously done business as B.A.S.E.C. Limited in England.

            5.         Although operating as a partnership, B.A.S.E.C. was advertised as the "Special Projects Division of [EDC]."  Since Roberts is not a U.S. citizen, Roberts wanted the business to appear as though it were a part of a U. S. corporation.  In fact, B.A.S.E.C. was not part of the corporation, but was the name of the partnership operated by Roberts and EDC.

            6.         Although expenses for B.A.S.E.C. were primarily paid by EDC, Roberts did incur some of the advertising and other expenses.  For example, EDC paid $280 for B.A.S.E.C. advertisements for the bodyguard/investigation business.  Roberts obtained Izzo's approval prior to placing those advertisements.

            7.         In February 1992, EDC applied for P.O. Box 8146 in the name of B.A.S.E.C. for the purpose of receiving responses to advertisements.  EDC paid for the box rental.

            8.         In addition, EDC opened a bank account in the name of EDC d/b/a British American Security Executive Consultants, showing Izzo as President and Roberts as "designated agent."  Again, this designation did not accurately describe the partnership relationship.

            9.         In return for consulting services, EDC provided Roberts space at EDC's office and paid him a weekly management consultant fee of $500, for which Roberts submitted weekly invoices.

            10.       On June 8, 1992, Roberts proposed moving out of the EDC offices.

            11.       One June 9, 1992, Roberts terminated his partnership relationship with EDC.  The next day Roberts signed a trade name certificate stating that B.A.S.E.C. was his solely-owned business, operating at 110-M Greentree Road, Suite 111, Turnersville, NJ  08012.

            12.       Roberts then sought to have the mail addressed to British American Security Executive Consultants ("B.A.S.E.C") at P.O. Box 8146, and at 108-M Greentree Road, Turnersville, NC  08012, forwarded to his new mailing address at 110-M Greentree Road, Suite 111, Turnersville, NC  08012.

            13.       Michelle Izzo disputes Roberts' forwarding request and has asked that mail addressed to B.A.S.E.C. at P.O. Box 8146 or at 108-M Greentree be delivered to her.  She does not seek delivery of mail addressed to B.A.S.E.C. at Roberts' new address, 110-M Greentree, and agrees that Roberts may continue to do business as B.A.S.E.C. at his new address.

            14.       EDC and Izzo, who are in the business of installing security systems, are not in a position to operate a bodyguard/investigation business, and do not seriously wish to receive the disputed mail themselves.  Izzo previously proposed by letter to Roberts dated June 19, 1992 that the disrupted mail be returned to sender "as I have no interest in it."

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

            1.         EDC and Roberts previously operated B.A.S.E.C. as a partnership, but this relationship was terminated on June 9, 1992.  Since that time, Disputant Roberts has continued to operate B.A.S.E.C. as a sole proprietorship at a new address.  EDC has no real interest in receiving the mail in dispute since Izzo previously proposed that the mail be returned to sender, and has no interest in conducting a bodyguard/investigation business.  However, EDC's president, Michele Izzo, is now in a controversy with Roberts and wishes to prevent him from receiving B.A.S.E.C. mail to the extent it is addressed to EDC's office address and P.O. Box 8146.

            2.         If possible, mail should be delivered to the most likely intended recipient.  Vinal Whitney, P. S. Docket No. MD-135 (PSD 2/10, 92); see Safeguard Business Systems, Inc., P. S. Docket No. MD-136 at 5 (PSD Feb. 7, 1992); Rev. Paul N. Carrithers, P. S. Docket No. MD-119 at 3-4 (P.S.D. Oct. 2, 1991).  Since EDC and Izzo are no longer interested in the business of B.A.S.E.C., and, having proposed that the mail be returned to sender, do not even seriously wish to receive the mail in dispute, Disputant Roberts is the intended recipient.

            3.         Disputant Izzo argues that the P.O. Box was rented by EDC, and that she should be allowed to require that any mail addressed to that box be returned to sender.  This argument is rejected.  The purpose of a mail dispute proceeding is not to determine the issue of "control" of a box, but rather to determine who is entitled to obtain delivery of the disputed mail.  Vinal Whitney, MD-135 (PSD 2/10, 92).

            4.         When the partnership dissolved on or about June 9, 1992, it did not terminate for all purposes.  In this regard, a partner is entitled to wind up the partnership affairs and receive partnership mail to accomplish that end.  Thus, after the dissolution of the partnership, it was entitled to receive mail in dispute herein for the purpose of winding up its affairs.  Brian Eiland, P. S. Docket No. MD-97 (I.D. October 2, 1990).

            5.         Since Disputant Roberts is the only partner who sincerely wishes to receive the disputed mail, it is concluded that he should do so for the purpose of winding up the partnership business.  It is noted that the partnership is no longer doing business at the disputed addresses.

            6.         Accordingly, mail addressed to British American Security Executive Consultants ("B.A.S.E.C") at P.O. Box 8146, and at 108-M Greentree Road, Turnersville, NJ  08012, should be delivered to Disputant Roberts or in accordance with this direction.

            7.         This decision only determines the right to delivery of the mail in dispute, and not its ownership.  In the event that Disputant Roberts receives mail clearly intended for Disputant Izzo or EDC, he is responsible for forwarding such mail to Michele Izzo.

            8.         The attached mail delivery order should be issued.

Randolph D. Mason
Administrative Law Judge