In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

ROCCO S. STEZZI, JR.
and
ANNE S. MAXWELL, ESQ.
and
RONALD PELCZAR
P.S. Docket No.  MD 05-25

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT ROCCO S. STEZZI, JR.:
Rocco S. Stezzi, Jr.
2442 S. Mildred Street
Philadelphia, PA  19148-3720

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT ANNE S. MAXWELL, ESQ.:
Anne S. Maxwell, Esq.
842 S. Second Street, Suite 5
Philadelphia, PA  19147-3430

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT RONALD PELCZAR:
Ronald Pelczar
2535 Aspen Street
Philadelphia, PA  19130-2404

INITIAL DECISION

            This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM 9, July 2002) Section 616.21, which requires the Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution.  The mail in dispute is that addressed to Anthony J. Pelczar and/or Anthony J. Pelczar c/o Ronald Pelczar, at 2535 Aspen Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130-2404, and at 2527 Brown Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130-1810, and at P.O. Box 15167, Philadelphia, PA 19130-0167.  The Philadelphia Postmaster is currently holding the mail.

            All three parties filed written statements, as required by the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §965.5.  Mr. Stezzi and Ms. Maxwell also submitted several attached documents.

DECISION

            This is a dispute over management of the affairs of Anthony J. Pelzcar, an elderly and incapacitated man.  Ronald Pelczar is his son.  Mr. Stezzi is his son-in-law.  Ms. Maxwell, an attorney, is a court-appointed guardian.  The matter is currently in litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Orphans’ Court Division.

            On March 18, 2005, that court issued an Order referencing the fact that “Anthony Pelczar’s mail was being held by the post office, . . .”, and stating, “it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Anne S. Maxwell is authorized to collect the mail from the post office and to prepare an inventory of all assets found therein.”[1]

            The Postal Operations Manual (POM 9, July 2002) Section 616.3, states: “When the same mail is claimed by different persons, and a court decides to whom delivery should be made, the mail is delivered according to the court order.”

            Mr. Stezzi recites a detailed factual history and challenges the validity of the Orphans’ Court Order.  Based on the facts he presents, he argues that POM §616.3 does not apply in this case.  It is not our role to look behind the Court Order and determine whether we agree that it is correct.  Any challenge to that Order must be raised in the court that issued it.

            Accordingly, the Judicial Officer should issue an Order to the Philadelphia Postmaster that the disputed mail shall be delivered to Anne S. Maxwell.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston
                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1] The court also issued a Supplemental Decree on March 18, 2005, directing further medical evaluation of Anthony J. Pelczar and scheduling another hearing for April 27, 2005.