This presumption is especially true when the delivery is by certified mail." Dunn v. Watson , 211 W. Va. 418, 421, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The law further presumes that, when a person signs for a certified mailing, he or she has authority to do so. "[A] rebuttable presumption of valid service of process arises when a return receipt for certified mail is signed, and that the signator, if not the addressee, ... acted as the agent of the addressee authorized to accept service in the absence of proof to the contrary."
16, at *4 (Ohio Ct. App., March 16, 2010) (when service is attempted by certified mail, a signed receipt returned to sender establishes a prima facie case of delivery to the addressee and valid service is presumed when any person at defendant's address received the certified mail); Discover Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Collins, 299 P.3d 510, 513 (Okla. Ct. Civ. App. 2013) (statutory presumption that a return receipt for certified mail signed at registered office or principal place of business is presumed to have been signed by an employee authorized to receive certified mail); Ramsay v. Pierre, 822 A.2d 85, 89 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) (by rule, there is a rebuttable presumption that the signator was an agent of the defendant authorized to receive the certified mail of defendant); MCI Tellecomms. Corp. v. Tarrant Cty. Appraisal Dist., 723 S.W.2d 350, 356 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987) (presumption of delivery applies to certified mail even though "some individual" other than addressee signs receipt). Dunn v. Watson, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (W.Va. 2002) (a rebuttable presumption of receipt is established by mailing, and the presumption is especially strong when service is made by certified mail).
y, 2010 WL 926016, at *4 (Ohio Ct.App., March 16, 2010) (when service is attempted by certified mail, a signed receipt returned to sender establishes a prima facie case of delivery to the addressee and valid service is presumed when any person at defendant's address received the certified mail); Discover Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Collins, 299 P.3d 510, 513 (Okla.Ct.Civ.App.2013) (statutory presumption that a return receipt for certified mail signed at registered office or principal place of business is presumed to have been signed by an employee authorized to receive certified mail); Ramsay v. Pierre, 822 A.2d 85, 89 (Pa.Super.2003) (by rule, there is a rebuttable presumption that the signator was an agent of the defendant authorized to receive the certified mail of defendant); MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tarrant Cty. Appraisal Dist., 723 S.W.2d 350, 356 (Tex.Ct.App.1987) (presumption of delivery applies to certified mail even though “some individual” other than addressee signs receipt). Dunn v. Watson, 211 W.Va. 418, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (2002) (a rebuttable presumption of receipt is established by mailing, and the presumption is especially strong when service is made by certified mail). [¶ 17] We agree that a rebuttable presumption of valid service of process arises when a return receipt for certified mail is signed, and that the signator, if not the addressee, will be presumed to have acted as the agent of the addressee authorized to accept service in the absence of proof to the contrary.
y, 2010 WL 926016, at *4 (Ohio Ct.App., March 16, 2010) (when service is attempted by certified mail, a signed receipt returned to sender establishes a prima facie case of delivery to the addressee and valid service is presumed when any person at defendant's address received the certified mail); Discover Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Collins, 299 P.3d 510, 513 (Okla.Ct.Civ.App.2013) (statutory presumption that a return receipt for certified mail signed at registered office or principal place of business is presumed to have been signed by an employee authorized to receive certified mail); Ramsay v. Pierre, 822 A.2d 85, 89 (Pa.Super.2003) (by rule, there is a rebuttable presumption that the signator was an agent of the defendant authorized to receive the certified mail of defendant); MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tarrant Cty. Appraisal Dist., 723 S.W.2d 350, 356 (Tex.Ct.App.1987) (presumption of delivery applies to certified mail even though “some individual” other than addressee signs receipt). Dunn v. Watson, 211 W.Va. 418, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (2002) (a rebuttable presumption of receipt is established by mailing, and the presumption is especially strong when service is made by certified mail). [¶ 17] We agree that a rebuttable presumption of valid service of process arises when a return receipt for certified mail is signed, and that the signator, if not the addressee, will be presumed to have acted as the agent of the addressee authorized to accept service in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Because Plaintiff has demonstrated (1) proper addressing and (2) placement into the USPS system on December 21, the Court finds that Plaintiff has entitled himself to the presumption of timely delivery. See Dunn v. Watson, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (W. Va. 2002) (explaining the presumption created by the mailbox rule, the rationale for its implementation, and the application of the rebuttable presumption); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Schaffer, 731 F.2d 1134, 1137 (4th Cir. 1984) (providing that a properly addressed piece of mail is presumed to be delivered "in the regular course of mail delivery," but noting that the presumption is stronger when sent by certified mail) (citations omitted); Me. Med. Ctr. v. United States, 675 F.3d 110, 114 (1st Cir. 2012) (explaining the common law mailbox rule "'help[s] courts determine when the pertinent document was physically delivered,' allowing for the presumption that 'physical delivery occurred in the ordinary time after mailing.'" (emphasis original)); Phila. Marine Trade Ass'n v. Comm'r of IRS, 523 F.3d 140, 147, 149-51 (3d. Cir. 2008) (generally discussing and applying the common law mailbox rule and providing that when "a document is properly mailed, the court will presume the United States Postal S
Although the plaintiff's burden is onerous, a West Virginia court may set aside a trustee sale due to fraud. Syl. Pt. 3, Dunnv. Watson, 566 S.E.2d 305 (W. Va. 2002) ("A party who seeks to have a trustee sale set aside for irregularity, want of notice, or fraud has the burden of proving his contention, it being presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the sale was regular."). Moreover, such judicial action is undertaken without regard for the purchaser's culpability.
There is a rebuttable presumption that "a letter properly addressed, stamped and mailed" is subsequently delivered to the person or entity listed as the addressee. Dunn v. Watson, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (W. Va. 2002); see also Lupyan v. Corinthian Colls. Inc., 761 F.3d 314, 319 (3d Cir. 2014) (detailing the rebuttable presumption under the mailbox rule). Although sending a document through certified mail creates a stronger presumption, a letter sent through regular mail will still create a presumption, albeit a weaker one.
Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 61 n. 14, 459 S.E.2d 329, 338 n. 14 (1995). See also Dunn v. Watson, 211 W. Va. 418, 421, 566 S.E.2d 305, 308 (2002) (same, citation omitted); Coleman v. Sopher, 201 W. Va. 588, 612, 499 S.E.2d 592, 616 (1997) (same). Indeed, we have elaborated that