September 26, 2018

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

CAROLE FUESS and LYSSA TEMPLE

P.S. Docket No. MD 18-238

APPEARANCE FOR CAROLE FUESS:
Carole Fuess

APPEARANCE FOR LYSSA TEMPLE:
Lyssa Temple

INITIAL DECISION

This mail dispute involves a squabble over an elderly family member’s mail. Specifically, a daughter and granddaughter are arguing over their mother and grandmother’s mail. After the dispute was docketed, the Judicial Officer issued an order directing the local postmaster to hold all mail addressed to Stephen “Stevie” Ruth Voorhees at 772 Woodland Drive, Los Osos, California 93402 until this mail dispute is resolved.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The primary players in this mail dispute are (1) the family matriarch, Stevie Ruth Voorhees, (2) Stevie’s daughter, Carole Fuess, and (3) Stevie’s granddaughter and Carole’s daughter, Lyssa Temple (Fuess Decl. at ¶ 1).
2. On May 14, 2018, Ms. Voorhees signed a durable power of attorney granting her granddaughter Lyssa a wide range of authority over her business and financial interests (Referral, ¹ Attach. B at 1–9).
3. The next day, May 15, 2018, Ms. Voorhees moved from an assisted living facility into her daughter Carole Fuess’s home at 722 Woodland Drive, Los Osos, California (Fuess Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 12). 
4. On July 16, 2018, Ms. Voorhees revoked any and all power of attorney authority she had previously granted to anyone other than her daughter Carole. (Referral, Attach. A at 1).
5. On August 7, 2018, Ms. Voorhees signed a durable power of attorney giving her daughter Carole authority to act on her behalf. That document referenced the fact that it was based on Section 4401 of the California Probate Code, which includes “broad and sweeping” power under Sections 4400–4465 of the state Probate Code. (Referral, Attach. A at 2–4).
6. This dispute was referred to the Judicial Officer and docketed on August 28, 2018. The Notice of Docketing directed each party to file a sworn statement of the facts supporting its claim to the disputed mail. The Notice of Docketing warned the parties that their failure to file a sworn statement could result in their being held in default, resulting in the mail being delivered in accordance with the direction of the other party. The sworn statements were due on September 12, 2018.
7. Ms. Fuess timely filed a sworn statement. To date, Ms. Temple has not filed anything supporting her position.

DECISION

The procedures for resolving mail disputes require the submission of sworn statements and documents relied on by the disputants in support of their respective positions. 39 C.F.R. § 965.5. A party who fails to comply may be held in default, and the presiding officer may issue an initial decision that mail be delivered to the other party. 39 C.F.R. § 965.7. Here, Ms. Temple failed to submit a sworn statement or supporting documents as required by the Notice of Docketing. That failure is sufficient to find her in default and to rule in favor of Ms. Fuess. In addition, Ms. Fuess has submitted evidence sufficient to rule in her favor, which I will briefly discuss.
In August 2018, Ms. Fuess and her daughter discussed Ms. Voorhees’s mail. Ms. Fuess learned that, sometime previously, her daughter had arranged for Ms. Voorhees’s mail to be forwarded to Ms. Temple’s house. (Fuess Decl. at ¶ 12). The record is not clear, but Ms. Temple may have made this arrangement during the brief period between May and July 2018 when she held a general power of attorney for her grandmother (Findings 2, 4). In August 2018, however, Ms. Voorhees executed a new power of attorney granting her daughter, Ms. Fuess, broad and sweeping power over her financial affairs under the California Probate Code (Finding 5).
While the applicable probate code provisions do not specifically address delivery of the mail, the powers granted by the power of attorney are nonetheless sufficient to find that Ms. Fuess has the right to direct delivery of her mother’s mail. Section 4401 references, among other things, the power over banking and insurance transactions, taxes, and personal maintenance. In her declaration, Ms. Fuess raised these types of issues as one of the reasons that Ms. Voorhees’s mail should be delivered to her house rather than being forwarded to Ms. Temple’s house (Fuess Decl. at ¶ 12).
Further, there is nothing in the record suggesting that either the July 2018 document revoking Ms. Temple’s power of attorney or the August 2018 power of attorney in favor of Ms. Fuess are not valid. Therefore, the later-signed power of attorney controls over the earlier, revoked power of attorney. Farmer, Sr. and Gloer, MD 04-184, 2005 WL 8152947 (I.D. February 16, 2005); Tutt and Ramsey, MD 00-234, 2000 WL 36731155 (I.D. August 4, 2000).
Finally, one of the principal purposes of the rules governing mail disputes is that mail should be delivered as intended by the senders. Although we most often apply this concept to disputes over business mail, we have also applied it in the context of a family dispute. Thompson and Thompson, MD 08-232, 2008 WL 11383932 (I.D. September 18, 2008). Here, it seems likely that anyone sending mail to Ms. Voorhees intended it to be delivered to her at her current home, rather than to her granddaughter’s house at a different address. This principle thus further supports allowing Ms. Fuess to direct the mail because her stated intention is to have the disputed mail delivered to Ms. Voorhees’s current home (Fuess Decl. at ¶ 12).

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the Judicial Officer issue an order to the Los Osos Postmaster directing that all mail being held, or hereafter received, addressed to Stephen “Stevie” Ruth Voorhees at 772 Woodland Drive, Los Osos, California 93402 be delivered as directed by Carol Fuess.
This decision only addresses how the disputed mail should be delivered by the Los Osos Postmaster. It does not resolve any other legal disputes between the parties. Further, it does not decide who actually owns the contents of the disputed mail. Hoeppner and Vollstedt, MD 08-251, 2008 WL 11383933 (I.D. October 16, 2008). Finally, if a future court order directs that a different party is entitled to direct delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that the mail will be delivered according to that order. Postal Operations Manual § 616.3.

Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge