laying legal groundwork --registered mail?

Sigene · October 7, 2009, 11:50am

I’ve had a water problem with the owner of the condo above me. I would like to “officially” tell him to fix his water problem in a letter.

Do I:
Send it Registered Mail?
or some other type of mail, so I can have proof that he got the letter I sent?

Hi_Medlo · October 7, 2009, 11:54am

Certified mail , return reciept requested is the product you use to show evidence that the letter was delivered. Registered mail is for items of financial value.
Having a return reciept for a certified item proves that something was delivered, but doesn’t prove anything about what was in the envelope.

Quercus · October 7, 2009, 12:38pm

So of course you have to keep a copy the letter, along with the returned receipt. I suppose he could argue in court that what you sent wasn’t what you have a copy of, but I don’t think the judge is likely to buy it.

kurilla · October 7, 2009, 1:10pm

What one law firm I used to work for does is write “Via Certified Mail [item number]” on the letter itself. And then, of course, attach the mailing receipt and the return receipt with the same item number.

Bearflag70 · October 7, 2009, 1:34pm

That’s what I do. On the upper right side (right side justification) of the letter itself below the date and above the mailing address, I put this:

Via U.S. Mail
CMRRR - 1234 5678 9012 3456

Of course, to do this, you will have to get your blank certified mail slip from the post office before you finalize the letter. You can also pick up your Green Card (return receipt) at the same time.

kayaker · October 7, 2009, 2:24pm

While I agree with all that has been said. does anyone have any stats on how often mail is signed for by the intended recipient? I have gotten a coupla certified items in my life. In each case, I assumed the news wasn’t good, and I’ve not claimed the mail.

Bearflag70 · October 7, 2009, 2:41pm

I don’t have stats, but my understanding of the general rule is that if you mail something, then there is a rebuttable presumption the mail was actually delivered. Using CMRRR helps the sender because it is hard for the recipient to rebut the presumption of delivery once the recipient signs the green card. If the recipient refuses to sign for the CMRRR, then the mail is returned unclaimed, which rebuts the presumption of actual delivery.

I have seen some court opinions where the sender sends the letter by CMRRR with another copy sent by regular mail simultaneously. I believe it was a situation where a contract or statute required CMRRR. The CMRRR letter came back unclaimed, but the one sent by regular mail was not returned. The court held that was sufficient to satisfy the CMRRR requirement.

kayaker · October 7, 2009, 3:03pm

Cool. I was just discussing this situation with a friend. His business frequently has to send out mail CMRRR. He formed a company called Lottery Winning Disposition, got a PO box, and has much higher percentage for claimed CMRRRs!

Bearflag70 · October 7, 2009, 3:20pm

I make no representation that what I read applies to your situation or that what I read is the current status of the law. Check your current and local law.

All I read was some opinion I found on Google. I don’t know what year the opinion was or what jurisdiction.

Bearflag70 · October 7, 2009, 4:05pm

Again, I make no representations as to the current status of the law or whether the opnion quoted below may or may not apply to your situation. CHECK YOUR CURRENT LOCAL LAW YOURSELF OR WITH THE HELP OF YOUR ATTORNEY [NOT ME]. Here is what one California court said about CMRRR in 2005 just to see what one court, at the time, had to say about it in connection with the specific set of facts presented in that case:

Notice Cannot Be Defeated by Willful Failure to Accept Certified Mail

Edwards claims that Bear Creek failed to comply strictly with Civil Code section 1367, arguing that “there is no presumption of notice absent a signed certified receipt,” citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1020. This argument is again disingenuous. Code of Civil Procedure section 1020 provides that, “Any notice required by law, other than those required to be given to a party to an action or to his attorney, the service of which is not governed by the other sections of this chapter and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by law, may be given by sending the same by registered mail with proper postage prepaid addressed to the addressee’s last known address with request for return receipt, and the production of a returned receipt purporting to be signed by the addressee shall create a disputable presumption that such notice was received by the person to whom the notice was required to be sent.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 1020 is permissive; where a notice is required to be sent by mail, compliance with the mailing requirement may be satisfied by sending the notice by registered mail with a return receipt requested. Code of Civil Procedure section 1020 does not require mailed notices to be sent by registered mail. Likewise, while a signed return receipt may create a rebuttable presumption that the notice was received, the absence of such a signed return receipt does not negate any other presumptions concerning mailed items. Under Evidence Code section 641, “[a] letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail.”

Of course, a presumption of receipt is rebutted upon testimony denying receipt. ( Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38 Cal. App. 3d 819, 832, fn. 12 [113 Cal. Rptr. 790]; accord, Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 421–422 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818].) The presumption of Evidence Code section 641 properly applied here, unless rebutted by a denial of receipt. Attorney Enriquez did not testify, and thus never denied under oath that she had received the lien notices mailed to Edwards at her address. Edwards was in no position to deny receipt of the mail at Attorney Enriquez’s address.

Even if we accept for the sake of the argument, however, that the tenor of Edwards’s evidence was the intent to deny receipt of the lien notices, “the disappearance of the presumption does not mean there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding [i.e., of receipt of notice].” ( Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 421, italics in original) “ ‘ “*f the adverse party denies receipt, the presumption is gone from the case. [But] [t]he trier of fact must then weigh the denial of receipt against the inference of receipt arising from proof of mailing and decide whether or not the letter was received.” ’ ” ( Id. at p. 422, italics in original.)

Here, the evidence was uncontradicted that Bear Creek mailed the lien notices both by certified mail, as required, and by first class mail. Attorney Enriquez refused to sign for the certified letters, and those letters were returned by the post office. The first class letters were not returned, however. The correspondence from Attorney Enriquez, on Edwards’s behalf, plainly demonstrated knowledge of the disputed assessments. The inference is inescapable: Attorney Enriquez in fact received all the notices, but simply refused to accept the certified mail.

The requirement to send the lien notices by certified mail cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of refusing to sign the return receipt. “Where a statute provides for service by registered or certified mail, the addressee cannot assert failure of service when he wilfully disregards a notice of certified mail delivered to his address under circumstances where it can be reasonably inferred that the addressee was aware of the nature of the correspondence.” ( Hankla v. Governing Bd. (1975) 46 Cal. App. 3d 644, 655 [120 Cal. Rptr. 827].)

Quercus · October 7, 2009, 5:19pm

I know of one situation where a certified delivery wasn’t claimed (possibly because the recipient correctly suspected bad news). The sender’s attorney then FedExed a copy to the recipient’s office, which a secretary signed for. Done.

While I am not an attorney, I would be very surprised if as a general matter of law any notice HAS to be by certified mail (a particular contract could of course specify that kind of thing, as could a particular law). I believe this is the gist of the first part of Bearflag’s post.

For your neighbor, you could take a copy of the letter upstairs and take a video of yourself slipping it under his door. That would provide reasonable proof of delivery, too. But certified mail is usually easier, and more familiar for courts to deal with.

SanDiegoTim · October 7, 2009, 9:01pm

Unless I am mistaken, and assuming a Return Receipt is paid for, there’s only one difference between Certified and Registered. The latter moves from station to station in a locked pouch/container. Certified travels as 1st Class.

Markxxx · October 8, 2009, 3:09am

Make sure you mark the certified return receipt at “signature confirmation” so the person who picks up the letter will have to prove he is the one picking it up. Otherwise anyone can pick it up.

You could use registered mail for the same purpose, but why bother? It’s more money and it’s, as one sender said, to keep a very close eye on the letter from point of mail to point of delivery. So it’d be used for things like jewelry and such