Opening Mail With Someone Else's Name

I'm curious if someone can really get in trouble if they open mail that doesn't have there name on it?

Are you supposed to send it back to the sender and can you get in trouble for throwing it away {if that's what the person claims they did}
I have proof that mail with my husbands name from our insurance company has been going to his ex-wifes address. I found out from the "online version" of the bill...only thing is they are not getting forwarded back or forwarded to us. Can she get in trouble?

ETA - They are using her address because thats what she is using as billing claim address when she takes child to the doctor ....so then the claim is getting sent to her address with my husbands name clearly spelled out

The mail is going to her address because she is authorized to use the health insurance. If your husband wants her to use his address as the billing address, he can talk to her about that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The mail is going to her address because she is authorized to use the health insurance. If your husband wants her to use his address as the billing address, he can talk to her about that.

---

So that means she is authorized open mail with his name on it. It is his insurance and only the child uses it, when she visits the pediatrician our insurance sends the EOB to the address that the pediatrician office has on their claim. We don't think she should be opening it and it should be forwarded to us or back to the insurance company

She's authorized to use the insurance. The correspondence pertains to that authorized use. If he wants all of the insurance correspondence to come to him, and for his to be the only billing address, he can take that up with the custody court. She's authorized to remove mail from her own mailbox, and that's the point where the USPS stops caring what happens to your mail.

Trying to orchestrate a petty and ultimately doomed plot to prosecute her for opening correspondence pertaining to her children's health care? I think you can find a better use for your time.

Quote:

---

Quoting celais

---

So that means she is authorized open mail with his name on it. It is his insurance and only the child uses it, when she visits the pediatrician our insurance sends the EOB to the address that the pediatrician office has on their claim. We don't think she should be opening it and it should be forwarded to us or back to the insurance company

---

You need to be speaking to YOUR insurance company. There is no reason YOUR insurance company should be sending the EOBs to your ex.

Have you or your husband been harmed by her opening this mail? Are there any damages or concerns of fraud that have arisen as a result of the ex opening the mail?

If not, then there is almost NO chance of the police or the feds getting involved even IF some statute can be found to cover this. I believe that the feds' involvement ends when the mail is delivered to the address where it was sent ... I haven't looked recently, but I seem to recall there being no federal violation for opening someone else's mail.

And at least in my state, I cannot think of a state charge for opening mail addressed to someone else.

So, without some form of damage or other crime occurring as a result of her opening the mail, I don't see that there is a case for anything here. Your hubbie needs to get his insurance mail redirected if he does not want her getting that mail. Arguably, the ex has a right to see this information anyway.

As Mr. Knowitall said, this has all the earmarks of some kind of attempt to exact retribution in a petty manner ... it won't fly.

- Carl

Quote:

---

So, without some form of damage or other crime occurring as a result of her opening the mail, I don't see that there is a case for anything here. Your hubbie needs to get his insurance mail redirected if he does not want her getting that mail. Arguably, the ex has a right to see this information anyway.

---

How would the mother have any rights to this info? The only reasoning I can see that would give such rights would be if the mother were required to pay part of the non-covered costs. There was nothing stated to cause this to be considered.

I would think that depending on what info was sent, there could be a HIPAA violation should any info other than the childs be included in those mailings.

as well, I believe there is a violation of law when opening the mail.

Quote:

---

Title 18-Part 1-Chapter 83-1703 states in part that "Whoever, without the authority opens or destroys any mail or newspaper package not directed to him shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both."

---

granted that is a Wiki quote and I have not confirmed the authenticity of the cite.

I will agree that this is probably an attempt to cause problems for the ex.

No, we just feel it's none of her business what our insurance payed and/or what we owe. We have brought it up to the attention of our insurance company and even though we have the childs address as ours on our papers whatever address she chooses to give to the doctors is where the EOB are going. We were just wondering if she could get in trouble for this, previously we brought this up to the judge, as we weren't getting our bills from insurance because they were going to her address and the judge told her not to open our mail, not on paper, just verbally...and that was the extent of that. However, it has been 9 months and we still never get bills unless we go online and check to see if the child has been to the doctor, because we never know if/when she has because we live a few states over and don't communicate with the ex

I still think you need to deal with your insurance company.

It is your policy and nobody has rightful access to that info absent a court order. Your insurance company should be sending info regarding your insurance to only you.



Time to get the whoop ass stick out and have a conversation with the insurance company.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

How would the mother have any rights to this info? The only reasoning I can see that would give such rights would be if the mother were required to pay part of the non-covered costs. There was nothing stated to cause this to be considered.

---

The insurance covered her child. It is also possible that the insurance also covers her. I can think of a number of reasons why she might have a right to the info. And even if she HAS no right to it, so what? Without damages, do you really think that the US Attorney is going to waste ANY time on this one? I have dealt with US Attorneys and I can safely say this would not even cross their desk unless you added some kind of mail fraud to it.

Quote:

---

I would think that depending on what info was sent, there could be a HIPAA violation should any info other than the childs be included in those mailings.

---

Doubtful. Besides, if the medical info was sent to the husband's listed address, then they did not violate HIPAA by sending it to where he directed them to.

This is a whole lot o' nothin'.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting celais

---

No, we just feel it's none of her business what our insurance payed and/or what we owe.

---

Then tell your hubbie to change the mailing address.

Quote:

---

We have brought it up to the attention of our insurance company and even though we have the childs address as ours on our papers whatever address she chooses to give to the doctors is where the EOB are going.

---

Does she have shared legal custody of the children? If so, she may well have a right to that info concerning the care and treatment of her child. If this is simply a bill, then this is something hubbie needs to address with his insurer or the doctor's office.

And if he really is bent about this then HE can go back to court and stipulate in the custody orders that she forward all mail to him.

Quote:

---

However, it has been 9 months and we still never get bills unless we go online and check to see if the child has been to the doctor, because we never know if/when she has because we live a few states over and don't communicate with the ex

---

Many insurers want to see a local address ... they may not be comfortable billing a third party out of state.

Until you can get a judge to act on her possibly violating a court order, this is a nowhere issue. No US Attorney is going to blink at an ex spouse looking at an insurance billing concerning the ex's child! It just is not going to happen.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I still think you need to deal with your insurance company.

It is your policy and nobody has rightful access to that info absent a court order. Your insurance company should be sending info regarding your insurance to only you.

Time to get the whoop ass stick out and have a conversation with the insurance company.

---

Part of the problem might be that hubbie is out of state. I recall that when I was living in the north state and my wife and kids were still in San Diego, my insurer and the doctor wanted a LOCAL address - the address where the kids would be staying, and the person who would be responsible for their treatment. Even though they were covered by MY insurance, I was a few hundred miles away so SHE got the bills at her mother's house.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Part of the problem might be that hubbie is out of state. I recall that when I was living in the north state and my wife and kids were still in San Diego, my insurer and the doctor wanted a LOCAL address - the address where the kids would be staying, and the person who would be responsible for their treatment. Even though they were covered by MY insurance, I was a few hundred miles away so SHE got the bills at her mother's house.

- Carl

---

I have a hard time understanding this as first of all, all an EOB is is what it states; explanation of benefits. It merely informs the policy holder of what was billed and what was covered at waht amount. It effectively informs the consumer of what they will be getting billed from the provider. It is not a bill. It does not benefit the mother unless she is required to pay part of the med bills not covered by insurance. Even then, I suspect she would need to have the courts direct the ex-hubby to provide such info rather than allowing her to open anothers mail.

OP already stated the ex wife is not covered by the insurance.

As to any legal entity getting involved? I suspect the postmaster general would investigate this regardless of damage. As in another thread, although there may be n damages, the fact is the law has been broken.


as to sending it to a local address; I live very near a state line and utilize med services in the state I do not live in. My insurance is contracted to a provider within my home state with their office at least a couple hours away (driving time). I cannot imagine them caring where they send anything as long as they are sending it to me as it is I they have the contract with and no other. Nobody else is legally entitled to the info contained in the EOBs from my insurer. It is based solely upon my contract with them.

Quote:

---

Doubtful. Besides, if the medical info was sent to the husband's listed address, then they did not violate HIPAA by sending it to where he directed them to.

---

OP claims they were not directed by the hubby to mail the info to the ex's home. As a matter of fact, they had already addressed this with the insurance comapny seeking the EOB's be sent to the hubby's address.


but besides all that, I do not see this as a life changing event and OP should simply address this with their insurance company and the courts the next time they all get together there. OP had already stated the ex was given a verbal directive by the judge to refrain from opening hubby;s mail.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

As to any legal entity getting involved? I suspect the postmaster general would investigate this regardless of damage. As in another thread, although there may be n damages, the fact is the law has been broken.

---

Even if the letter of the law were broken, a prosecution for this would be a waste of resources and I cannot imagine a US Attorney anywhere in the US wasting his time with it.

Prosecutors prioritize cases all the time, and cases that are not worth their time and effort are not pursued. THIS would be one of those.

Quote:

---

OP had already stated the ex was given a verbal directive by the judge to refrain from opening hubby;s mail.

---

OP also stated that it was no in any written order. Hence this is unlikely to be enforced. And unless the issuing court was in the same state where the ex currently lives, good luck and enforcing the out of state court order violation. Very few states will extradite from out of state for a misdemeanor court order violation ... and, depending on the OP's state, this may be a civil court order and thus knocked down a rung further on the ol' priority scale.

I agree, hubbie needs to address the issue with the insurance provider or the medical offices doing the billing or mailing. Whoever is mailing it out needs to be spoken to, because it sure as heck ain't gonna get prosecuted.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Whoever is mailing it out needs to be spoken to, because it sure as heck ain't gonna get prosecuted.

---

agreed, that is pretty much a given.

the point about the judges direction would only be applicable should they appear before the same judge and either he remembers or is given proof of the statement. Not intending to imply that it was a court order, I would think it may simply piss off the judge and cause him to be less accomodating of the ex-wife.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

As to any legal entity getting involved? I suspect the postmaster general would investigate this regardless of damage.

---

The USPS is concerned about what happens to a letter from the time it enters the system to the time it is removed from the destination mailbox. The Postmaster, receiving a complaint which states that nothing improper happened to a letter between the time it was placed into the mail and the time it was delivered to the destination address and removed by the owner of that mailbox, can be expected to reply, "This isn't our concern."

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The USPS is concerned about what happens to a letter from the time it enters the system to the time it is removed from the destination mailbox. The Postmaster, receiving a complaint which states that nothing improper happened to a letter between the time it was placed into the mail and the time it was delivered to the destination address and removed by the owner of that mailbox, can be expected to reply, "This isn't our concern."

---

Quote:

---

Sec. 1702. Obstruction of correspondence

Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post
office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter
or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized
depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it
has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to
obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of
another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 778; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
Sec. 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

---

sounds like since it was intended for the OP (per the name on the correspondance) so the ex is in fact breaking the law. The control of the postal service is not merely to the time it is placed in a postal delivery box but until it reaches the intended addressee. If this were a business situation, I would believe diferently since there is a right for a business to open all mail recieved at their address but this is personal correspondance at a private residence so I believe the business exception situation would not apply.

There may also be state statute that would be applicable as well. Haven't been that worked up to research that possibility.

Mail is directed by virtue of the address on the correspondence. Have you ever received a letter addressed to a former occupant of your residence, or a misdirected letter intended for a neighbor? Do you think you committed a felony because you took it out of your own mailbox? Obviously not because (a) it was directed to you via your mailbox, (b) you have the legal right to empty your own mailbox, and (c) even if you ignore those facts you can't have the intent requisite to violate the statute before you know something has been misdelivered to you. Once delivered mail is lawfully out of your mailbox, by its plain language, that statute does not apply.

If the ex-husband wants the mail to be directed to him at a different address, he can take that up with his insurance company. The USPS can be reasonably expected to continue to deliver his mail as addressed by the insurance company.

Quote:

---

Do you think you committed a felony because you took it out of your own mailbox?

---

Not for removing it from the mailbox BUT if I opened it or disposed of it, then absolutely yes.

Quote:

---

Once delivered mail is lawfully out of your mailbox, by its plain language, that statute does not apply.

---

Would you consider reading the statute again. How could the statute address the OPENING of the mail unless it was removed from the mailbox?

Quote:

---

If the ex-husband wants the mail to be directed to him at a different address, he can take that up with his insurance company. The USPS can be reasonably expected to continue to deliver his mail as addressed by the insurance company.

---

There never has been any argument on these points.

Perhaps you don't understand the plain language, "before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed". As has been repeatedly explained to you, the USPS is concerned about the integrity of mail from mailbox to mailbox, but not even a split second after the mailbox owner removes his or her mail from the mailbox. Here, the mail was unquestionably delivered to the designated address, and was lawfully removed from the mailbox by its owner. That's the end of the line. There may be a state statute which applies at that point, but it's not a violation of the federal statute.

Let's say you take your mail out of your mailbox, and put it on your kitchen table. A burglar breaks into your house and steals a letter. You truly believe that would violate the statute or that the USPS is going to investigate?

You can keep hammering on this until you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that this is not a federal offense.

JK, this issue comes up in real life with some frequency. Almost invariably it is a situation involving quibbling estranged or split spouses, and with equal certainty the USPS interprets the law as Mr. Knowitall has explained.

As I said, even if there were a statute interpreted as to cover it, no US Attorney (vastly overworked and understaffed) is going to pursue this matter given the only "offense" was opening it. Likewise, I don't a DA so bored as to take up the case, either, even if it were a violation of some state law.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

JK, this issue comes up in real life with some frequency. Almost invariably it is a situation involving quibbling estranged or split spouses, and with equal certainty the USPS interprets the law as Mr. Knowitall has explained.

As I said, even if there were a statute interpreted as to cover it, no US Attorney (vastly overworked and understaffed) is going to pursue this matter given the only "offense" was opening it. Likewise, I don't a DA so bored as to take up the case, either, even if it were a violation of some state law.

- Carl

---

It's not that I believe something such as this situation would be prosecuted but the letter of the law quoted included OPENING the mail. It also states the mail is to be delivered to the PERSON, not merely the address (which btw, the wife has misrepresented so as to recieve the EOB's, which ARE protected info under HIPAA. If there is any personal medical info in any of those EOB;s other than the childs, the insurance company is in violation of the HIPAA laws.)How it is prosecuted may be different than what the statute actually states but it does specifically address opening of the mail and the person as opposed to the address.

I didn't write the law. It says what it says.

and regardless of the wife having authorization to use the insurance (which btw has never been presented here. The child has use of the insurance, not the mother), she still would not have any right to recieve the EOB's as it is the fathers insurance and all correspondance would be required to be directed to the father as the policy holder, not the mother who has nothing to do with the insurance unless the father (policy holder) has directed the insurance company to act otherwise.

Bottom line, I do understand the USPS probably will not do anything although if it were me, I would still ask them. They may initiate a minor investigation that will get the mother to refrain from the action. The father is pretty much relegated to asking the courts to place and enforce an order against the mother to refrain from her current activity.

The problem here seems to be your dogmatic adherence to your misinterpretation of the statute.

I can see the statute being applied to somebody who knowingly converts misdirected mail (you cash a check addressed to your neighbor, but mistakenly delivered to you), but I have never seen any authority or evidence of any prosecution involving a situation such as the one under discussion. Has anybody?

I do not have the knowledge or access to search for applicable cases so I am not able to provide you with much of any substantive proof.

In this link:http://www.nd.edu/~watch/chap12.htm

Quote:

---

The legal standing of email privacy is simple — there is none. Though opening regular mail addressed to another person is a federal crime, important legal questions regarding electronic forms of mail have not been raised or answered yet by the courts. Meanwhile, most employers view email as employer property. Rule of thumb advice:

---

that poster does elude to the fact they understand that opening mail addressed to another is illegal. It is only mentioned as a contrast to e-mail, which was actually the topic at hand, but they did state simply that it was illegal. I think I will tend to accept their belief over yours Mr.K. If you did not notice where that link is from, it is from the University of Notre Dame, which most folks employed in the legal field, do acknowledge as having a fair law school. I would suspect that what is published under the guise as being from the university would have to pass muster for accuracy.

I also found a couple cases that stated the federal courts do have more than one stance on this situation and part of them do feel that it is illegal.

Quote:

---

As noted by appellant, there is a split among the federal circuits as to how this statute should be interpreted. Several courts have interpreted the legislation as drawing a distinction between "misaddressed" and "misdelivered" mail, holding that where the sender places the name of a third person on the envelope but uses the defendant's address, the item ceases to be "mail matter" once it has been delivered to the place listed on the envelope, even if the addressee is not at that address. See, e.g., United States v. Lavin, 567 F.2d 579, 581 n.6 (3d Cir. 1977); United States v. Anton, 547 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1976); and United States v. Davis, 461 F.2d 83, 88-89 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 921 (1972). Under that view, although it is permissible to prosecute a defendant for stealing from a letter addressed to another location that has been misdelivered to the defendant's address, a defendant cannot be prosecuted for stealing from an envelope that contains the defendant's address, even if a third party is the named addressee. Other circuits have taken the view that a person may be prosecuted for mail theft for stealing mail addressed to another person, regardless whether it is misdelivered or misaddressed. See, e.g., United States v. Palmer, 864 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490U.S. 1110 (1989); United States v. Douglas, 668 F.2d 459 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1108 (1982).

---

Maybe you could look those referrences up Mr. K.

Since the hubby does not live at the address the mail is being left at, the mail would be considered to be misaddressed. It is obvious the insurance company intends to send it to the husband since his name is on the mail as well as there is no reason for them to send it to the ex wife as I have stated before.

And, good luck on getting a DA or US Attorney to even look at it when the issue is simply opening mail that has benefits info.

Enough already!

This will not be prosecuted. One can theorize all day long whether the OP's local court or federal circuit will recognize this as a crime, but it won't change the fact that no prosecutor is going to waste any time with this. There's nothing here.

The OP needs to go back to civil court and see if that judge can force the ex into something. But, if the OP's court is in HER state, and the ex lives in another state, that is likely ALSO an exercise in futility. So, the Ex needs to talk to his insurance company and to the medical provider to make certain that HE gets the bills.

- Carl

Carl, did you miss where I had acknowledged what you just posted several posts ago? Around post 9 is where I stated OP needs to deal with the insurance company and self initiated court action to remedy the problem. Everything since then was simply academic.

I agreed to the probable action long ago but Mr. K wanted to beat me up for my position. I was merely lightly defending the underlying position, not what reality would dictate would happen.

I'll concede that, thirty or so years ago, there was apparently a split between the circuits largely consistent with my prior statements - most circuits saying "the law ends when the addressee removes the mail from the mailbox" and a few circuits extending the law to the theft or conversion of misdelivered mail by the addressee. And I would be interested to learn how the case law has since developed. But even that's consistent with my prior statement - you're describing the conversion of misdirected mail - which is not what is alleged to have happened here. The issue here is one of divorce judgments and insurance company policy, and to the extent that dad objects to either his angry acquiescence is not enough to turn this into a crime. If you can't find any case which speaks to the issue we are actually discussing, sorry if you think it means I'm beating you up, you really have no business carrying on about how federal law was violated and how the Postmaster will launch an investigation. We (now) all agree that the feds will pass on this one.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

We (now) all agree that the feds will pass on this one.

---

we agreed to that a long time ago. You apparently missed my memo:D

btw, the mail is misaddressed, as I noted before. it is intended for hubby but does not have his correct address on it. That would be misaddressed and was addressed in the statute I provided.

Quote:

---

how the Postmaster will launch an investigation.

---

I did not unequivically state the PM would launch an investigation. I suggested contacting the PM with the hope that they would initiate a low level investigation which may have the desired affect of causing the mom to stop opening dads mail. It may be a means to an end although I agreed a long time ago that it would not be prosecuted as a crime.

From what was written, the address was used by the insurance company because the mother's address is the billing address. There's no indication that this was "misaddressed". But it's not worth arguing about.

Interestingly, my daughter's EOB's come in her name. It would be interesting to see how the envelopes are actually addressed, as (above and beyond the fact that this is "much ado about nothing") this may be "much ado about nothing."

Meanwhile, as has been repeatedly observed, if Dad wants to be sure that his insurance company sends all correspondence to him, he needs to contact them and arrange that.

jk: The mother could actually help the da by making sure that the medical procedures that she "witnessed" were properly billed. That's what I use my EOB for. When I get it, I can know immediately if I will get another bill from the doctor's office, or if something doesn't seem right.