PSBCA No. 6761

CARLOS VALDES AND DULCE VALDES v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANTS
Robert M. Hustead Esq

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
Margaret E. Harper Esq
United States Postal Service Law Department

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON APPELLANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Postal Service leased a post office building from Carlos and Dulce Valdes.  The building was severely damaged by a hurricane.  On September 11, 2020, we held that Mr. and Mrs. Valdes were liable for the repair costs with a few minor exceptions. 
Mr. and Mrs. Valdes filed a timely Request for Reconsideration requesting three items be added to the exceptions.  We deny the request for exterior cleanup and floor replacement costs.  In its response to the motion, the Postal Service conceded its responsibility for removing, cleaning, and reinstalling the post office boxes owned by the Postal Service.  We therefore grant the motion as to that issue.
Background¹
The Postal Service leased a building used as the Post Office in Chokoloskee, Florida, from Mr. and Mrs. Valdes.  In September 2017, the building was severely damaged by Hurricane Irma.  Because Mr. and Mrs. Valdes did not promptly repair the building, the Postal Service completed the repairs at a cost of $89,352.39.  The Postal Service claimed entitlement to these costs.  We largely ruled in favor of the Postal Service and held that it was entitled to the repair costs, with a few exceptions, because the terms of the lease made Mr. and Mrs. Valdes liable for hurricane damage repairs.  We also determined that the building improvements were not fixtures owned by the Postal Service.
The repair costs were broken into 14 categories.  Mr. and Mrs. Valdes ask that we reconsider our earlier decision allowing two of these categories and part of a cost included in a third category.  Specifically, we held that Mr. and Mrs. Valdes were liable for exterior cleanup and replacing the flooring.  In addition, we held that Mr. and Mrs. Valdes were liable for removal of the building contents and either replacing or cleaning them.  Included in this third category were costs for disassembling, sanitizing, and reinstalling the post office boxes which were rented to customers by the Postal Service.
Motion for Reconsideration
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show either: (1) a factual or legal error warranting a change of the prior decision or (2) newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence sufficient to change the prior decision. Murray v. United States Postal Service, PSBCA Nos. 6635, 6640, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,570; see also Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 820 (1992); 18B Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790 (2d ed. 2012). 
Mr. and Mrs. Valdes allege that the Board made factual and legal errors relating to the liability for three items (exterior cleanup, flooring replacement, and post office boxes).  We address each item.
Regarding exterior cleanup, Mr. and Mrs. Valdes argue that the landlords are only responsible for maintaining the common or joint use areas, thereby excusing them from responsibility for this cost.  We’ve already considered this argument and held that the cleanup costs following the hurricane were necessary and reasonable parts of the repair work.  See Valdes, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,680.  As we previously held, the lease provides in Paragraph 4 of the Maintenance Rider that the landlords are “liable for casualty damage or Acts of God,” which includes hurricanes.  Mr. and Mrs. Valdes’s argument only works if we do not read Paragraph 4 of the Maintenance Rider in the lease, which, as we wrote in our earlier decision, we will not do.  They have not shown a legal error relating to exterior cleanup.
Regarding the floors, Mr. and Mrs. Valdes argue that the lease excuses the landlords from costs for the “maintenance, repairs or replacement of floor coverings.”  They misread the lease.  That language only excludes the floors from the structural elements of the building; it does not excuse the landlords from the costs associated with “casualty damage or Acts of God . . . .”  Again, we are not going to ignore Paragraph 4 of the Maintenance Rider.  They have not shown a legal error relating to replacing the flooring. 
As for costs for “disassembling, sanitizing, and reinstalling the post office boxes,” the Postal Service confirmed in its response to the motion for reconsideration that the post office boxes were Postal Service property.  As such, the Postal Service concedes that it is liable for this cost.  We accept the concession and hold that Mr. and Mrs. Valdes are not responsible for the cost of disassembling, sanitizing, and reinstalling the post office boxes.

ORDER

The motion for reconsideration is denied in part and granted in part.  Mr. and Mrs. Valdes are liable for the exterior cleanup and floor costs.  The Postal Service is liable for disassembling, sanitizing, and reinstalling the post office boxes.

Peter F. Pontzer
Administrative Judge
Board Member

 I concur
Alan R. Caramella
Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman
I concur:
Diane M. Mego
Administrative Judge
Board Member