November 8, 2011

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between    

CATHY LOTT GRANTHAM
and
RITA LOTT DELOACH
and
LINDA LOTT DOUGLAS                                        

P.S. Docket No. MD 11-282

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT
CATHY LOTT GRANTHAM:                       

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT
RITA LOTT DELOACH

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT           
LINDA LOTT DOUGLAS:                           

INITIAL DECISION

The three disputants are sisters who cannot agree as to which of them should receive mail addressed to their deceased father.  The mail in dispute is addressed to Johnnie Cecil Lott, individually or jointly with any of the named disputants, at 1383 County Road 93, McCarley, MS 38943-6697.  The McCarley Postmaster has been directed to hold the disputed mail.  I recommend that the Judicial Officer direct the postmaster to release the mail to Ms. DeLoach

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Johnnie Cecil Lott died on August 27, 2011 (Exhibit 5).  At the time of his death at age 88, Mr. Lott lived alone at 1383 County Road 93, McCarley, MS 38943-6697, the disputed address (C. Grantham Rebuttal Affidavit (Grantham Reply Aff.), attachment; Exhibit 8).

2. Mr. Lott had transferred the property at issue to Ms. Grantham by warranty deed subject to a life estate in his favor (Grantham Reply Aff., attachment).  Ms. Grantham now owns the property in fee, and lives there part time.  However, her permanent residence is over 100 miles away, where she is employed.  (Grantham Rebuttal Aff. at pp. 1, 3; Affidavit of C. Grantham (Grantham Aff.) at pp. 2-3; Affidavit of R. DeLoach (DeLoach Aff.) ¶ 1[1]).

3. Mr. Lott executed a will, which so far as the record reveals, is uncontested.  The three disputants are Mr. Lott’s daughters, who are equal beneficiaries under that will.  (Referral letter from Postal Service field counsel (Referral Letter); Exhibit 5).  The will named Ms. DeLoach and Ms. Grantham as co-executors of Mr. Lott’s estate (Exhibit 7).

4. Mr. Lott’s wife, Dorothy Lott, is incompetent and resides in a nursing home (Referral Letter; Exhibits 1, 3).  Mrs. Lott’s affairs are handled by Mr. M. Adams, under a power of attorney.  Mail addressed to Mrs. Lott, or jointly addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Lott at the disputed address, is forwarded as directed by Mr. Adams (Exhibits 1-2).  Accordingly, mail jointly addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Lott is not here in dispute and should continue to be forwarded.

5. Ms. DeLoach has lived next door to her father’s residence for over 25 years and interacted with him on a daily basis. Although Mr. Lott largely was self-sufficient until shortly before his death, Ms. DeLoach was his primary caregiver, and is most knowledgeable about his affairs (DeLoach Aff. ¶ 1-3; Statement of B. Heath; Statement of R. Bankston[2]; cf., Rebuttal Statement of L. Douglas (Douglas Rebuttal) at p. 2 (acknowledging Ms. DeLoach as Mr. Lott’s primary caregiver but disputing that Ms. DeLoach possesses superior knowledge about Mr. Lott’s affairs)).  However, Ms. Grantham spoke with Mr. Lott every day by telephone (Grantham Rebuttal Aff. at p. 1).

6. The disputants provided conflicting requests to receive mail sent to the address in issue, if addressed to Mr. Lott individually, or to Mr. Lott jointly with one or more of the three disputants.  On September 21, 2011, field counsel for the United States Postal Service forwarded this dispute to the Judicial Officer for resolution, and the case was docketed and assigned to the undersigned administrative judge. (Notice of Docketing of Mail Dispute and Submittal Deadline, September 26, 2011).  All three parties submitted sworn statements, and the record closed on November 1 (see October 18, 2011 Order).[3]

DECISION

Ms. Grantham argues that the held mail and future mail in dispute should be released jointly to the estate’s co-executors, herself and Ms. DeLoach, or to any two of the daughters, presumably by appointment at the post office (Grantham Aff. at p. 3; Grantham Reply Aff. at p. 3).  She also argues that mail addressed jointly to Mr. Lott and her should be released to her, and that mail addressed only to her at the disputed address be delivered as addressed (Grantham Rebuttal Aff. at p. 3).  Ms. Grantham also argues that she is more sophisticated in business matters and better educated than Ms. DeLoach, and therefore is better suited to handle her father’s affairs, which requires her to receive the mail.  She suggests that Ms. DeLoach is untrustworthy as is the evidence Ms. DeLoach presented.  (Grantham Rebuttal Aff. at pp. 1-3). 

Ms. DeLoach argues that her sisters are uncooperative.  To ensure that the estate’s affairs are handled properly, she contends that the mail should be delivered as she directs because she is most knowledgeable about and in the best position to handle the estate’s affairs.  (DeLoach Aff. ¶¶ 2-4, 6). 

Ms. Douglas does not seek the disputed mail, except for mail addressed jointly to her and Mr. Lott (Affidavit of L. Douglas).  Ms. Douglas argues that the disputed mail should be released to the three sisters together at the post office under the supervision of a fourth person who would hand the mail physically to the appropriate recipient and who would open certain mail to be redirected (Douglas Rebuttal at p. 2). Otherwise, Ms. Douglas generally supports the position of Ms. Grantham (Douglas Rebuttal at pp. 1-3).

The usual rules that guide resolution of mail disputes such as the one before me are unhelpful.  Ordinarily, the Postal Service should deliver mail addressed to a deceased person as addressed, allowing someone who would normally receive the deceased’s mail at that address to receive such mail. Postal Operations Manual § 612.41. However, none of the disputants lived at the address used by the deceased at the time of his death (Finding 1). See Leonard H. Mayer, Jr. and Pearl H. Mayer, P.S. Docket No. MD 97-352 (I.D. November 14, 1997), finalized, (Order December 9, 1997). 

While Ms. Grantham now resides part time at this address, which is over 100 miles from her permanent residence (Finding 2), she does not represent that she lived at her father’s residence before his death.  Ms. DeLoach similarly does not represent that she lived there (though she lived next door) but she attests that she frequently picked up the mail at the disputed address while her father was alive (DeLoach Aff. at ¶ 5).  The evidence is insufficiently developed for me to be able to determine that either disputant would normally receive the deceased addressee’s mail at the address at which he had lived, within the meaning of the regulation.  I do not believe that section 612.41 applies to this situation.

Alternatively, postal rules provide that mail addressed to a deceased person may be forwarded to a different address based on a request of an executor.  Postal Operations Manual § 612.42.  Accordingly, were a single executor of the estate appointed, I would recommend that the Judicial Officer order release of the mail as directed by that person.  See Victoria Ann Bunney and Norman Gilbert, Jr., P.S. Docket No. MD 10-351 (I.D. January 20, 2011), finalized, (Order March 8, 2011).  However, Ms. Grantham and Ms. DeLoach are co-executors, and Mr. Lott’s will does not assign priority between them (Finding 3).[4]

Where co-executors are appointed, mail dispute decisions reflect that the executor that is currently handling the deceased’s affairs may direct delivery of the mail.  See Shelby W. Reed and Bonnie Simms, P.S. Docket No. MD 07-99 (I.D. May 10, 2007), finalized, (Order June 11, 2007).  However, both Ms. Grantham and Ms. DeLoach appear to be engaged in handling the deceased’s affairs, and both claim a superior ability to do so.

As for Ms. Douglas, she is not an executor and presently does not seek delivery of the disputed mail.  I reject Ms. Douglas’ request that the mail be released to the three sisters together under the supervision of an unidentified fourth person at the post office.  Where persons making conflicting orders for delivery of the same mail are unable to agree which should receive the mail, postal rules provide that the mail may be delivered to a third party so long as that person is unanimously agreed to by the disputing parties.  Postal Operations Manual § 616.1.  Where, as here, the parties cannot agree on such a third party receiver of the mail and persist with a mail dispute without agreement, I lack authority to impose such a resolution.  See Jay Enterprises of NC, Inc. and Wendy Blanks, P.S. Docket No. MD 10-57 (I.D. April 23, 2010), aff’d, (P.S.D. June 14, 2010).[5] 

On this record, the only apparent material distinction between the uncooperative co-executors, Ms. Grantham and Ms. DeLoach, is that Ms. DeLoach lived next door to her father, was his primary caregiver, engaged him personally on a daily basis, and is most knowledgeable about his affairs (Finding 6).  While this distinction is not a particularly satisfying basis on which to resolve this dispute, as the only material distinction apparent to me from the record, I find that Ms. DeLoach possesses a superior right to direct delivery of the disputed mail. 

It is not clear from the record however, whether Ms. DeLoach has filed a forwarding request, or alternatively, whether her expectation is to pick up the mail at the disputed address (where Ms. Grantham resides part time). I will not countenance an unseemly race to the mailbox.  Accordingly, Ms. DeLoach is advised that she may not simply retrieve all mail from her father’s address as apparently she has done at times in the past (DeLoach Aff. at ¶ 5).  Rather, she must instruct the postmaster as to how the disputed mail, here resolved in her favor, should be re-directed.  Furthermore, Ms. DeLoach is cautioned that this mail dispute only determines that she may direct delivery of the disputed mail, not that she owns any such mail.  If mail should be re-directed to Ms. Grantham or Ms. Douglas, Ms. DeLoach must do so.  Furthermore, if the parties work out their differences (as obviously they should), they should so inform the postmaster.  If this matter finds itself in court, postal regulations require that the mail will be delivered as directed by a court order.  Postal Operations Manual § 616.3.

Furthermore, if mail for the address in question is addressed to Ms. Grantham alone, it is not subject to the mail hold order.  Such mail should be delivered as addressed.

I recommend that the Judicial Officer issue an order to the McCarley Postmaster to release held mail and to deliver future mail addressed to 1383 County Road 93, McCarley, MS 38943-6697, as follows:

If addressed to Mr. Lott, individually or jointly with one or more of Ms. Grantham, Ms. DeLoach or Ms. Douglas, deliver as directed by Ms. DeLoach;

If addressed solely to Ms. Grantham, deliver as addressed.

Gary E. Shapiro
Administrative Judge

[1] Ms. DeLoach submitted an unsworn statement on October 6, 2011, and later submitted the statement as a sworn affidavit, on October 24, 2011.

[2] I assign less weight to the unsworn statements by Mr. Heath and Mr. Bankston, as well as one by Ms. DeLoach’s daughter. However, without more persuasive reasons to do so, I do not disregard them as completely unreliable as Ms. Grantham asks.

[3] Ms. Grantham’s addendum to her rebuttal affidavit was received November 1, and has been considered.

[4] I reject Ms. Grantham’s argument that Mr. Lott’s appointment of her to share access to his safe deposit box reflects his judgment that she was the more trustworthy executor for purposes of handling his estate (Grantham Rebuttal Aff. at p. 3). Mr. Lott’s appointment of the sisters as co-executors must control although, unfortunately, in retrospect that appointment appears to be harmful to the settling of his affairs due to the uncooperative nature of those co-executors.

[5] Ms. Douglas also suggests that mail addressed to Mr. Lott and to her with an indication of right of survivorship sent to the disputed address, should be delivered as she directs.  However, jointly addressed mail is delivered as addressed only if one of the addressees can receive it there.  Postal Operations Manual § 613.1.  I decline the invitation to require the postmaster to review continually the mail further for additional re-distributions, here potentially to five or more different addressees, which in any event, would not resolve mail addressed to Mr. Lott and more than one of his daughters.