NY Magistrate: Legal Papers Can Be Served Via Facebook

New submitter Wylde Stile writes with an interesting case that shows just how pervasive social networking connections have become, including in the eyes of the law. A Staten Island, NY family court support magistrate allowed a Noel Biscoch to serve his ex-wife legal papers via Facebook. Biscoch tried to serve his ex-wife Anna Maria Antigua the old-fashioned way — in person and via postal mail — but his ex-wife had moved with no forwarding address. Antigua maintains an active Facebook account, though, and had even liked some photos on the Biscoch's present wife's Facebook page days before the ruling. The magistrate concluded that the ex-wife could be served through Facebook. If this catches on, I bet a lot of people will end up with legally binding notices caught by spam filters or in their Facebook accounts' "Other" folders.

Comments

But your honor...

[crafty.munchkin]

... it went into my Other folder! No-one checks that!

Re:But your honor...

[Wylde Stile]

I never even knew Facebook had mail let alone folders.

Re:But your honor...

[ShanghaiBill]

And now because of this judge, everyone must check their FB Other folder regularly or be subject to summary judgment for failure to appear in court. (I am not a lawyer)

No. That is not what the judge said. He said FB could be used IN THIS ONE CASE. He did not say it could be used generally. In this case, the plaintiff was able to show that his wife was not reachable by other means, and was actively using her FB account. If you have a physical address of record, and you either answer the doorbell, or open and read postal mail sent to that address, then you don't have to worry about your "other" folder on FB.

Re:But your honor...

[gnasher719]

The judge may have said it can be used in this one case, but unless struck down by another court, it sets up a precedent for other judges to do the same.

In the same circumstances. If a person disappears without leaving a forwarding address, but is actively using their facebook account.

Re:But your honor...

[Baloroth]

The judge may have said it can be used in this one case, but unless struck down by another court, it sets up a precedent for other judges to do the same.

IANAL, so I can't say for sure, but it's unlikely. The magistrate didn't rule on a matter of law, only on a matter of procedure (i.e. how to serve a notice). Judges in most cases are typically free to set procedural changes if necessary at their discretion, no precedent required. It's not a formal court decision, it's a discretionary alteration to formal procedure made necessary by the difficulty in contacting the ex-wife. And of course it's a low level judge anyways: their decisions of any kind tend to carry very little weight with other courts.

Of course, other judges who hear about the case may decide on their own judgment to do likewise, but there is nothing legally obligating or even inclining them to do so.

Re:But your honor...

[apraetor]

You're correct. And the most important part, which everyone seems to be forgetting, is that this was an on-going case -- the woman already had been made a party to it; she knew she was supposed to keep updated contact information with the court clerk. It takes a trivial amount of effort, just a phone call in most jurisdictions, so the courts at that level can allow procedural changes like this when it's clear the party is intentionally or at least willfully failing to notify the clerk. It's not very smart, but some people do it thinking it'll prevent the case from proceeding.

What?

[C18H27NO3]

This is just so astoundingly absurd on so many levels I'm at a loss for words.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because then you have a guarantee they know they have received them, even if they immediately bin them. With Facebook they could easily sit in an area unnoticed. All you know is the account received them, just because the user is commenting and liking posts in the main part of Facebook doesn't mean they ever check their messages, notifications etc.

Re:What?

[flyneye]

Certified mail is acceptable notice for just about everything except serving subpoenas.
It still requires an officer of the court in the U.S.
Take into account that the judge is a fucking moron, like so many others of his kind.
In the chain of law enforcement, there tends to be a brotherhood philosophy of "you wash my back, I'll wash yours" and " don't screw with anyone who has a lot of years on the job", standing between the people and their constitutional rights, anyway.
If you ever step into a courtroom, never EVER expect justice and right to prevail. That stuff is only in the movies. Expect law enforcement TO SERVE themselves AND PROTECT each other.

Re:What?

[rtb61]

There is a substantive difference. Facebook only represents the identification of a name and not a person. Anyone can hold that name, any claim can be made about who holds that name on Facebook and at no time is positive identification of a person made.

But wait

[StripedCow]

If legal documents can be sent over Facebook, then shouldn't communications on Facebook be regulated under the FCC telecommunications act?

This would include that private messages sent over Facebook may not be inspected by Facebook, and may not be used for targeted ads.

Which is why you shouldn't be on such systems

[Karmashock]

Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when your aunts and uncles started making accounts.

Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when your boss/employer started checking it.

Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when the government started sniffing around it for information about you.

Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when judges decided it was a reasonable means to serve legal documents.

Get off facebook... it is only down hill from here.

Re:Which is why you shouldn't be on such systems

[thegarbz]

Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when judges decided it was a reasonable means to serve legal documents.

Get off facebook... it is only down hill from here.

Tell me about it. I gave up on having a phone, fax, email, and legally registered postal address a long time ago. I was using Facebook until now as the only means of my communication but now that I may actually get a legal letter through it I guess I better stop using that too.

God forbid the courts rule you can serve someone via a Slashdot reply, if that happens I'll never be able to communicate with anyone again.

better than a "legal notices " ad in the paper

[raymorris]

This is, I think, the key line in TFA:

> A Family Court official ruled that Noel Biscocho could use Facebook to serve Anna Maria Antigua because other, more traditional methods to slap her with papers have not worked.

Historically, when the defendant absolutely cannot be reached any other way, the service of last resort was to put a classified ad in the "legal notices" section of the newspaper. In order for a judge to accept that, you had to show that you didn't know where the person lived or worked, and had no reasonable means of finding out. It seems to me that in case like this, delivery via the person's _active_ Facebook account is much better than a classified ad,and may well be the best available method of reaching the person.

Help. I am trapped On Beta: Addendum

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

P.S.

Timothy and other Slashdot Editors,

I am afraid that I must post an addendum to my previous call for assistance. The difficulty of the interface appears to be more considerable than I had initially realised.

Unfortunately, the interface does not load all comments on the page. In fact, only one comment is loaded on any given page, and the "load more comments" area / button provided, when pressed, does not in fact load anything. As such I am unable to determine whether my previous comment has been replied to, or indeed whether it has been posted at all. In short I can no longer see or read comments.

In the hope that this message will be seen, I will periodically attempt to post messages of aid in a scattering of stories. Whether these "post in a bottle" will reach you, or float at all, is something I can only hope for at this point.

In the meantime I shall see if the pieces of flat design driftwood can be lash togther into a makeshift civilisation of sorts. However this island appears quite desolate. The floating header follows whereever I go. Perhaps I will try to converse with it.

In any case I remain your hopeful servant,

A poster trapped in Beta

FCC irrelevant

[stomv]

Papers are often served via the US Mail. FCC has no jurisdiction. Papers are often served at "last and usual," jargon for the place where the person is believed to have resided most recently. FCC has no jurisdiction over the front door. Contrary to film noir movies, papers are only occasionally served "in hand" where the process server physically hands the documents to the person of interest. Of course, the FCC has no jurisdiction there either.

In short, the FCC has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Source: I am a process server.

Asking to end Child Support payments

[Attila Dimedici]

The gentleman in question was going to court to end the court order requiring him to pay child support payments for his now 21 year old son. It seems to me that a better solution would have been for the judge to issue an order to the provide the address for the account where the child support payments were being deposited. Followed up by an order suspending the payments if the ex-wife was not at that address until such a time as an actual address was found (the logic being that if the address the account was registered at was not at that address, then there was reason to believe that the account was actually being used by someone else). Confirmation of the correct account being found would come in the form of the court papers being served. Further the court could have ruled that the suspended child support payments would only be due if the court found in the ex-wife's favor on the petition which the man had made.

Re:Asking to end Child Support payments

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not really extra effort. He stops paying until he is informed of her current address, at which point he serves her the papers. If he never receives her address, he never makes another payment and no further court action occurs. Of course, with the ruling I suggested in hand, he might also have a basis for requesting a court order to freeze the account in question, since the address on the account is not that of the registered account holder. Even if he cannot obtain a court order, he can possibly make the bank uncomfortable enough about the account that they report it to the appropriate government agency for investigation as a "suspicious account" under various anti-money laundering laws.

Re:One more reason

[penguinoid]

1) Find wife's FB password.
2) Keep account active by visiting pages and liking stuff.
3) Get judge to agree to serve legal papers via FB.
4) Profit!

Re:One more reason

[irq-1]

Anything done on a computer is a crime under CFAA, if the prosecutor wants it to be. And if you make a fake FB account to deceive a judge and lie in court about it, you'll get the Aaron Swartz "hacker" treatment.

Service by Publication

[Etherwalk]

The judge may have said it can be used in this one case, but unless struck down by another court, it sets up a precedent for other judges to do the same.

The precedent is already there. (Leaving aside issues of which precedent is binding v. persuasive v. nobody cares).

Service by publication--you just put ads in generally available newspapers--is allowed in some courts when you can't reach a person, a leftover from the days when people read newspapers.

A few years ago slashdot posted an article when a judge allowed service by *email*. The reasoning was that an email to the person was more likely to reach them than service by publication, which would have been allowed.

When service by publication would be permissible, most savvy judges are likely to allow service by email, if it is within their discretion to allow it.