December 11, 2013

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute

Between

TONYA JEFFERSON
and
DANIELLE WATERS

P.S. Docket No. MD 13-339

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT
TONYA JEFFERSON

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT
DANIELLE WATERS

INITIAL DECISION

This mail dispute has been docketed according to the provisions of Postal Operations Manual § 616.21 and under the procedures published in 39 C.F.R. Part 965.  The disputants, Tonya Jefferson and Danielle Waters, each claim entitlement to receive mail addressed to The Walk in Clinic at 1810 Highway 20, Suite 172, Conyers, Georgia 30013.   The Postmaster in Conyers has been holding the mail pending resolution of this dispute.

Each party submitted documents supporting her position, and a hearing was held in Conyers, Georgia.  As discussed below, I recommend that the Judicial Officer issue an order directing the Conyers Postmaster to deliver the disputed mail as directed by Tonya Jefferson.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  In 2010, the parties opened The Walk in Clinic and registered the business as a limited liability company under the laws of Georgia.  Ms. Jefferson prepared the paperwork necessary to register the clinic with the state and is listed as the LLC’s agent (Exh. 1 at 7; Tr. 37, 74-76, 140).  Ms. Jefferson also prepared the paperwork for an additional license from the city of Conyers (Tr. 67, 140).
2.  The parties agreed to share all expenses and income from the clinic equally (Tr. 50, 52, 127-28).
3.  By 2013, however, the parties’ business relationship had deteriorated, and they decided to end their partnership in the limited liability company (Tr. 129).  They discussed how to end their business relationship in a series of meetings in April and May 2013, but they never executed a written agreement (Tr. 37-38, 135-38).
4.  Because their business relationship ended, the parties agreed that one of them had to leave the Highway 20 location (Tr. 38, 136-37).  They allowed their landlord to decide which one of them could remain as a tenant (Tr. 130, 136).
5.  The landlord elected to have Ms. Waters stay at the Highway 20 location under a new lease executed in July 2013.  Ms. Waters signed the lease in her own name “d/b/a Conyers Walk in Clinic.”  Throughout the lease, the tenant is referred to as Conyers Walk in Clinic.  (Exh. 1 at 11-34; Tr. 136-37).
6.  Ms. Jefferson moved out of the Highway 20 location in June 2013 and opened a clinic elsewhere (Tr. 46).  In June 2013, she also filed documents with the Secretary of State in Georgia that amended the original limited liability company agreement that had been filed in 2010.  Those documents, which were signed and accepted by the Secretary of State, indicated that Ms. Jefferson was now the sole owner and manager of The Walk in Clinic.  (Exh. 1 at 43-45).
7.  Since July 2013, Ms. Jefferson has held a license with Rockdale County to operate The Walk in Clinic at its new location, which is outside the city of Conyers.  (Tr. 47; Exhs. 1 at 46, 8).
8.  Ms. Jefferson operates her current business as The Walk in Clinic at this other location (Tr. 35).  She also continues to use the same taxpayer identification number that The Walk in Clinic has used since 2010 (Exh. 7; Tr. 43-45).
9.  After Ms. Jefferson moved out, Ms. Waters continued operating a clinic—now known as Conyers Walk in Clinic—at the Highway 20 address (Tr. 134).
10.  Before Ms. Jefferson had moved out, Ms. Waters filed Articles of Organization with the Georgia Secretary of State establishing Conyers Walk in Clinic, with the Highway 20 address as its place of business (Exhs. 3, 11).
11.  Ms. Waters began using a different taxpayer identification number for Conyers Walk in Clinic (Exh. 2; Tr. 45).
12.  Ms. Waters opened a bank account for Conyers Walk in Clinic (Tr. 79, 82).
13.  The city of Conyers recognizes the clinic at the Highway 20 address as Conyers Walk in Clinic (Exh. 8).
14.  Ms. Waters herself refers to her clinic as Conyers Walk in Clinic (Tr. 134).

DECISION

Ms. Waters and Ms. Jefferson disagree over who now controls The Walk in Clinic, with each party asserting that she is carrying on the original business, with a corresponding right to receive its mail.  This decision, however, only addresses how mail for The Walk in Clinic should be delivered by the Conyers Postmaster.  It will not resolve any legal disputes that the parties may have over control of the business or its name.  Further, this decision does not purport to decide who actually owns the contents of the disputed mail.  Fred Hoeppner and Karsten Vollstedt, P.S. Docket No. MD 08-251 (I.D. October 16, 2008). 

Ordinarily, postal rules require that mail sent to a business organization, including a limited liability company, be delivered according to the directions of the organization’s president or an equivalent official (Postal Operations Manual § 614.1).  In this case, however, the parties operated the clinic as equal partners (Finding 2).  Nothing in the record suggests that either party had any superior authority over the other within the clinic’s business organization.  I am thus not able to decide who might be considered as the equivalent official to the president.  Luciano Bonanni and Allan Hausknecht M.D., P.S. Docket No. MD 11-279 (I.D. November 9, 2011). 

In the case of a mail dispute such as this one, I must also try to honor the intent of anyone who sends mail to The Walk in Clinic.  Anthony McGowan and Steve Sand, P.S. Docket No. MD 06-120 (I.D. September 19, 2006).  Here, honoring that intent must necessarily involve deciding—at least for purposes of mail delivery—which party is the likely intended recipient of mail addressed to The Walk in Clinic.

I find that Ms. Jefferson has presented the more persuasive evidence that she should receive mail addressed to The Walk in Clinic.  As noted above, she holds a license from Rockdale County to operate a business called The Walk in Clinic (Finding 7).  That clinic is also registered with the State of Georgia as The Walk in Clinic (Finding 6).  Finally, Ms. Jefferson’s clinic continues to use the taxpayer identification number that has been used by The Walk in Clinic since 2010 (Finding 8).  Taken together, these facts persuade me that the sender’s intent will be honored by having Ms. Jefferson direct delivery of mail addressed to The Walk in Clinic. 

The clinic operated by Ms. Waters, on the other hand, is now known and operated as a different entity—Conyers Walk in Clinic (Findings 5, 9, 10).  The city of Conyers recognizes it under that new name (Finding 13).  Ms. Waters herself uses that name for her clinic (Finding 14).

Accordingly, I find that anyone sending mail to The Walk in Clinic would reasonably expect that it would be delivered to that clinic’s new address—rather than to Conyers Walk in Clinic.  In order to honor that expectation, and to honor the intent of the senders, the disputed mail should be delivered according to Ms. Jefferson’s direction.

If either party receives mail that was intended for the other, she must redirect that mail as appropriate.  Further, if either party obtains a court order directing delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that the mail will be delivered according to that order (Postal Operation Manual § 616.3).

CONCLUSION

I recommend that the Judicial Officer issue an order directing that all mail being held, or hereafter received, addressed to The Walk in Clinic (or jointly addressed to The Walk in Clinic and both parties) be delivered as directed by Ms. Jefferson. 

Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge