Forwarding mail better than simply returning it

Jeffrey L. Seglin

Almost six years ago, a reader and her husband purchased a house from a couple who had decided to downsize and buy a condominium on a golf course.

The buyers had met the sellers only a handful of times — once when they did a final walk-through, then at the closing. Although the relationship between the couples was cordial, they didn’t get to know one another well. The sellers didn’t share their new address.

A month ago, the reader was perusing the obituaries in the newspaper and saw that a man with the same name as the seller had died. (On closer inspection, she discovered that it was instead an adult son.)

The reader shared the sad news with neighbors who might have known the couple better.

Three weeks later, the reader and her husband received two pieces of mail addressed to the former owners. From the stiffness of the envelopes, they seemed to be cards — condolence cards, the reader guessed.

“They must not have known them well if they didn’t know they moved six years ago,” the reader observed.

She found herself faced with deciding what to do with the cards.

Was she obligated to do exhaustive research until she found out where they had moved so she could forward mail to them? Or was it OK to simply write “return to sender” or “recipient no longer at this address” and drop the envelopes in the nearest public mailbox?

“Return to sender” is better than doing nothing. Yet the right thing is to make the effort to find the new address for the couple and forward the cards there.

If the search proved fruitless, then the reader could rest easier with the “return to sender” option. At least she would know that she had done the right thing by trying to get them to the people for whom they were intended.