In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

RONNI PORTNOY
            and

SYLVIA WEISS

P.S. Docket No.  MD 05-236

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT RONNI PORTNOY:
Ronni Portnoy

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT SYLVIA WEISS:
Sylvia Weiss

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 Leonard Lindenbaum at 1703 Andros Isle, Apt. H-3, Coconut Creek, FL 33066-2848.  The Coconut Creek Postmaster is currently holding the mail.

            Neither party filed a sworn written statement, as required by the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §965.5, but both filed notarized letters, along with some supporting documents.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties, including the material forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, South Florida Office.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Leonard R. Lindenbaum is deceased.  Sylvia Weiss was a longtime friend of Mr. Lindenbaum, shared a residence with him at 1703 Andros Isle, Apt. H-3 for many years and still lives at that address.  Ronni Portnoy is Mr. Lindenbaum’s daughter.

            2.  On January 20, 1999, Leonard R. Lindenbaum executed a will, appointing Sylvia Weiss as the Personal Representative of his estate.  He also gave and devised the condominium apartment that they shared at 1703 Andros Isle to her.  The remainder of his estate was left to the Leonard R. Lindenbaum Trust, to be administered by the Trustee.  (Copy of will attached to Law Department forwarding letter and to Weiss letter).

            3.  On September 27, 2005, Leonard R. Lindenbaum executed another will.  It is nearly identical to the first, except that the paragraph leaving the condominium apartment to Ms. Weiss is omitted, and it appointed Ronni Portnoy, rather than Ms. Weiss, as the Personal Representative.  (Copy of will attached to Law Department forwarding letter and to Portnoy letter).

            4.  Both wills appear to have been prepared by the same attorney, in Pompano Beach, Florida, and one of the two witnesses to the wills is the same.  Both wills include a standard clause stating that any and all previous wills that the testator may have made are revoked.  There is no evidence that either will has yet been offered for probate, but Ms. Portnoy did deposit the second will with the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, as required by Section 732.901 of the Florida Statutes.  (Court document attached to Law Department forwarding letter).

            5.  Mr. Lindenbaum died on October 7, 2005, and Ms. Portnoy submitted a PS Form 3575, Mail Forwarding Order, asking that all mail addressed to her father be forwarded to her.  Ms. Weiss protested and this mail dispute arose.  (Portnoy November 18, 2005 letter and Form 3575, attached to Law Department forwarding letter).

            6.  Postal Operations Manual (POM 9, July 2002) §612.41 provides as follows:

The Postal Service should deliver as addressed any mail addressed to a deceased person.  Anyone who would normally receive the addressee’s mail at that address may receive the mail.^[1]

            7.  The POM also states that mail addressed to a deceased person may be forwarded to a different address at the request of an appointed executor or administrator.  (POM §612.42).

DECISION

            Ms. Weiss states that she is challenging the second will, but there is nothing on the face of that will, or any other evidence in the file, to indicate that it is not valid.  Therefore, it takes precedence over Mr. Lindenbaum’s earlier will.

            Under the rules quoted in Findings #6 and #7, either of the two disputants could be entitled to receive the disputed mail.  However, it has been our practice to direct delivery of a deceased person’s mail to an appointed administrator or representative, if the representative has filed a change-of-address order.  Accordingly, the mail should be delivered to Ronni Portnoy.

            This decision deals only with delivery of mail, not ownership of it.  If Ms. Portnoy receives any mail that is intended for Ms. Weiss personally, it is her responsibility to forward that mail.  The decision also does not attempt to resolve any other disputes between the parties.  If either party obtains a court order directing delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that the mail will be delivered according to such an order.  POM §616.3. 

            The Judicial Officer should issue an Order to the Coconut Creek Postmaster directing that mail addressed to Leonard Lindenbaum at 1703 Andros Isle, Apt. H-3, Coconut Creek, FL 33066-2848 be delivered as directed by Ronni Portnoy.  Any mail addressed jointly to Mr. Lindenbaum and Sylvia Weiss does not appear to be in dispute and should be delivered as addressed.^[2]

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  If there is evidence that the mail is not being picked up, some additional procedures are described.

[2]  POM §613.1 provides that jointly addressed mail shall be delivered as addressed as long as one of the addressees can receive it there.