In the Matter of a Mail Dispute
Between

JOAN C. NERI

                and

VINCENT NERI

P.S. Docket No. MD 01-295

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANTEdwin Doernberger, Esq.
   JOAN C. NERI:Saxe, Doernberger & Vita, PC
1952 Whitney Avenue
Hamden, CT 06517-1209

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANTEdward L. Marcus, Esq.
   VINCENT NERI:111 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, CT 06510-1232

This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM 8, July 16, 1998 (with Revisions through June 28, 2001)) 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 Neri Construction, L.L.C., at 112 Nod Road, Suite 13, Clinton, CT 06413-1009, P.O. Box 93, Clinton, CT 06413-0093 and 316 B East Main Street, Clinton, CT 06413-2224. The Clinton Postmaster is holding the mail. Vincent Neri submitted a sworn statement, and Joan C. Neri’s counsel submitted a sworn statement on her behalf. Mr. Neri’s counsel submitted a sworn statement on Mr. Neri’s behalf in response to the statement of Ms. Neri’s counsel. The following findings of fact are based on the parties’ submissions, as well as the documents that had been previously submitted to the Postal Service and forwarded by Postal Service counsel to this office.

1. Neri Construction, L.L.C., was organized in 1997, and filed its Articles of Organization with the Connecticut Secretary of State in March of 1999 (Articles of Organization; Affidavit of Edwin L. Doernberger, ¶ 5).

2. Under the company’s Operating Agreement, ownership was by Members of the company. Vincent Neri and Joan C. Neri are the only two Members of the company, each with a 50% ownership interest. (Operating Agreement, Article I (r), Exhibit B; Master Surety Agreement, Unanimous Consent, attached to Affidavit of Edward L. Marcus).

3. Under the Operating Agreement, the company’s Managers, or either of them separately, are authorized to execute any documents and perform any acts necessary or appropriate to the conduct of the company’s business (Operating Agreement, Article V, Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 (g), 5.3 (j); Affidavit of Vincent Neri, ¶ 3).

4. Vincent Neri and Joan C. Neri are the only two Managers of the company (Operating Agreement, Article V, Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 (g), 5.3 (j); Affidavit of Vincent A. Neri, ¶ 3; Master Surety Agreement, Unanimous Consent, attached to Affidavit of Edward L. Marcus; May 4, 2001 Credit Application attached to Affidavit of Edwin L. Doernberger).

5. Prior to August 2001, the company conducted business at 112 Nod Road and P.O. Box 93, in Clinton, Connecticut (May 4, 2001 Credit Application attached to Affidavit of Edwin L. Doernberger; Ms. Neri’s Letter of August 16, 2001).

6. On August 7, 2001, Vincent Neri submitted a Change of Address Form directing the Clinton Post Office to forward mail addressed to the company at 112 Nod Road and P.O. Box 93 to Mr. Neri’s home address, 316 B East Main Street (Official mail Forwarding Change of Address Form dated August 7, 2001; Articles of Organization, ¶ 3).

7. On August 16, 2001, Joan C. Neri submitted a Change of Address Form directing the post office to forward the company’s mail from 316 B East Main Street back to 112 Nod Road or P.O. Box 93 (Official Mail Forwarding Change of Address Form dated August 16, 2001).

Both disputants are equal co-owners and have equal authority to control the business of the company, including directing delivery of the company’s mail (Findings 2, 3, 4). The Operating Agreement does not provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between the two Managers, such as that regarding delivery of the company’s mail, and, accordingly, neither can direct delivery of the mail over the objections of the other. The evidence submitted does not establish that either has exclusive authority to direct delivery of the mail for Neri Construction, L.L.C.

Those sending mail to the company, however, have indicated their intention that their mail be delivered as they have addressed it. To give effect to that intention, the mail in dispute should be delivered as addressed.

This decision deals only with delivery of the mail in dispute. It does not determine entitlement to the contents of the mail and does not purport to decide any other dispute between the parties. The parties may, of course, contact customers, vendors and other correspondents to urge those mailers to address future mail to a particular address. Additionally, if a court directs delivery of the mail in a different manner, the mail will be delivered according to the court order.

The Judicial Officer should issue an Order to the Clinton Postmaster directing that the disputed mail be delivered as addressed.

Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge