Judge Allows Divorce Papers To Be Served Via Facebook

An anonymous reader writes Want to divorce your husband or wife but can't give them the papers in person? Just use Facebook. No, apparently this isn't a late April Fools' joke. The New York Daily News reports Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper has allowed 26-year-old Ellanora Baidoo to serve her husband Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku divorce papers via a Facebook message. In fact, Baidoo won't even be the one sending the message. Her lawyer has been granted permission to message Blood-Dzraku using her account. "This transmittal shall be repeated by plaintiff's attorney to defendant once a week for three consecutive weeks or until acknowledged," the ruling states.

Comments

I'm not surprised

[Firethorn]

Wasn't it about 6 months ago that we had an article about a man being allowed to serve divorce papers via facebook, because the woman was carefully avoiding having any physical address to be served at, yet was probably still very active on facebook?

Okay, it was 'ex-wife' and just 'legal papers' seven months ago... source.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Aighearach]

It isn't news anyways. The harder a person makes themselves to be served legal papers, the more permissive the courts are in how service may be performed. Avoiding service is not intended by the courts to be a winning strategy, and they work hard to get around abusers and find a good-enough means of service. That is how they balance against the strict requirements to serve the papers. After all, if you're trying that hard to avoid receiving legal paperwork, you probably do actually know about it.

Re:I'm not surprised

[sycodon]

Next, one spouse will just have to proclaim loudly, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee!"

Done. Easy as Pie.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this article is old news.

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!

Re:I'm not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Divorce does not always mean you cease to love your ex. It does not always mean you break your promise. I used to be judgmental like you are, until it happened to me. Sometimes you cannot avoid it, and sometimes divorce is the least of an array of possible evils.

And yes I do mean to rain on your parade

Re:I'm not surprised

[sycodon]

Sometimes the bitch cheats on you.

Re:I'm not surprised

[smooth wombat]

Or the asshole cheats on her.

Not really out of the ordinary

[ModernGeek]

People that can't be found via their last known address, found by the police, or at a workplace are normally hiding from the law, and can be, with permission from the court, served by things such as notice in the newspaper several times. If they can't be found through friends, relatives, employers, etc, similar tactics have been used in similar cases.

Why bother?

[TheCastro1689]

In Maryland the sheriff's dept. is supposed to deliver you court papers like this and summons, but all they do is lie and say they delivered it even when you were out driving home from work. Happened to me twice. Why can't they do the same thing? Also I have lots of friends that couldn't figure out how to actually delete their facebook's so if they were "served" in this mannor they would never know.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I have also seen them "deliver" papers by simply sticking them on the front door of the wrong house.

The scary thing is that Facebook is becoming the new social security number. This privately owned and controlled by a 3rd party identity is suddenly "you". That is what is stupid. How long until every citizen is required to have a Facebook?

"Congratulations on your new baby! Her Facebook account is located at ..."

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've clearly never dealt with the system before. I own and run a small single person company and despite being registered with the state, having a website with contact details on the about page, having a domain thats not "protected", and so on we were never served. We have regular business hours posted and a working phone number everywhere. Nothing has changed since incorporation. A default judgement resulted. We did get paperwork after the fact which is how we learned about the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by a patent troll. I've yet to be informed how we were suppose to learn of the lawsuit or being served from something being advertised in a paper somewhere on planet earth. Do you know how many newspapers there are? While shrinking we're a New Jersey entity. We were sued by a Delaware registered LLC.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that necessarily true? I know both men and women who've been served numerous times, especially during divorce hearings or custody battles. Neither of those people were terrible people, they were just going through a terrible legal battle.

Re:Why bother?

[neminem]

A few years ago, I got served a lawsuit regarding a person entirely unrelated to me, but who happened to have the same name as me and live in the same city. When they couldn't track him down at his home, they found *me* listed as working at my work address, and gave it to me instead. I called him frantically, he said that's fine, mistakes happen, he was sure I wasn't the guy, he'd talk to his server and he was sure it was a mistake.

He called back the next day, said the server confirmed I was totally the guy he had a picture of (very unlikely, given I'm like 15 years younger...). I actually had to get a lawyer to get the guy to back off me. Luckily my mom knows a jillion people, and a friend of a friend of hers said he'd be happy to send the guy a nastygram on my behalf pro-bono. When the guy heard from an actual lawyer, he must have decided it wasn't worth it and went back to actually tracking down the guy that was supposed to get it, because I never heard back from him again.

So yeah. Not at all surprised there are a lot of awful lazy process servers out there who would rather just drop a lawsuit off randomly then actually make sure they gave it to the person who deserved it.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a good reason to install a security camera for the front porch. Said they were delivered and the recording says otherwise? Sue the sheriff's dept. The new body cams will also have evidence that they committed fraud. If they "misplaced" the evidence (the body cam video), then the default judgment should be awarded.

Re:Why bother?

[tompaulco]

I have been served before as well. I was served for not properly the garnishing the wages of somebody who had a standing wage garnishment order. The fact that the person never worked for me and was not known to me was apparently not a valid excuse.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I have also seen them "deliver" papers by simply sticking them on the front door of the wrong house.

I had some idiot leave papers on my apartment front door for somebody else. They couldn't be bothered to walk five minutes to the apartment complex office and talk to the manager, to find out the person was long gone (long as in over six months).

  As long as they get paid, the lawyers tolerate this kind of thing. It makes people more scared of the legal system, which creates long term demand for their services, especially when you need to get a lawyer to prove you weren't the person you don't look anything like. Forcing somebody to take time out of their life to deal with a hassle like this is really no different from kidnapping them at gunpoint for the same amount of time, but the lawyers don't care: they get paid to be intermediaries, which means a lot of their work happens not because it's needed, but because people don't want to have to spend the time themselves. They have a vested interest in having a system that wastes peoples time, creating demand for their services.

Lots of unethical stuff goes on in the US legal system.

Minimum Requirements

[geekmux]

Since we've now devolved the divorce down to a damn Facebook message, I'm curious..when will IT SysAdmins start officiating marriages?

Why the hell not? Seems that whole ordained minister thing is pretty much overkill.

Re:Minimum Requirements

[ModernGeek]

IT Systems Administrators have been officiating weddings ever since the creation of the Universal Life Church some years ago.

Re:Minimum Requirements

[Aighearach]

In Oregon any person can apply to get a license to officiate marriages, you don't have to be a member of a religion. There are probably already a bunch of IT Marriage Ministers in Portland. They have... a lot of options.

The thing is, you have to witness the marriage in person. So you'll need more than just any server, you'll need a webcam with a live feed. There are probably states that allow the official simply to "know of" the wedding.

Re:Minimum Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we've now devolved the divorce down to a damn Facebook message, I'm curious..when will IT SysAdmins start officiating marriages?

Why the hell not? Seems that whole ordained minister thing is pretty much overkill.

Anyone can officiate a Marriage.

The ceremony is completely optional and not a part of the legal proceeding (which is getting the certificate signed by all parties and filled by the county clerk).

Re:Minimum Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

just wait until 'friending' someone is equated to a common law marriage (which is a legal union in several states).

Re:Minimum Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

With this token ring, I thee wed.

Can you blame her?

[Anonymous Coward]

With a name like Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku her husband is obviously a vampire or something. I would want to deliver divorce papers from as far away as possible too.

Re:Can you blame her?

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually sounds as if she married a World Of Warcraft character, hence the need for the online divorce proceedings.

Re:Can you blame her?

[rahvin112]

Looks like Ukrainian Mafia to me, either that or a vampire. Either way I wouldn't want to serve them either.

Re:Can you blame her?

[dunkelfalke]

I might be corrected, but I don't think there is any word in Ukrainian that has "dzr" somewhere in it. To be honest, I am not sure if there is any Slavic language that has something like that. Not even the Czech, who infamously can have whole sentences without vocals.

Pretty standard actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are hard to properly serve notice on, so creative ways are implemented to manage it.

In this case, if it's a simple divorce, with no minor children, no alimony, and no other controversy, so the judge could have just as easily let it be published in a paper for all it matters.

Re:Pretty standard actually

[ArhcAngel]

creative ways are implemented to manage it

You aint lyin!

How do they know that he accepted it?

[hawguy]

How do they know that he accepted the papers? The wife already gave her attorney access to her account, so surely the court must see that the person using the account is not necessarily the person that it belongs to. Maybe the wife knows his password and she can log on to his account and "accept" the papers on his behalf.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the DEA accept on my behalf?

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[slazzy]

In many areas it's possible to consider papers passed to a parent valid to assume that the child will get them (yes, even for adult children away from the home), so this should be at least as direct.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[bws111]

They don't have to know he accepted the papers. No different than when they post legal notices (taxes, foreclosures, etc) in the newspaper.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't need to accept. She just has to say she sent them.
This is the new world with equality for all, as long as you aren't a CIS white male.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[Lord Apathy]

I wonder if this would work trying to serve the Crazy Bitch, errr, I mean my exwife papers for back child support.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its the exact opposite if I understood it correctly. The wife is required to reach out three times and if the husband doesn't respond then the judge will assume that contact has been made and ignored and the divorce can proceed.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[JustNiz]

>> They don't have to know he accepted the papers.

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

The whole point of "being served" is that its a legal process to ensure the recipient provably received the notice, exactly to prevent them from being able to use ignorance of it as a defence.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[Aighearach]

You don't get to accept or deny legal papers. The requirement is simply to receive them, so that you have an opportunity to arrange for your legal defense or response.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[Cro Magnon]

I think its the exact opposite if I understood it correctly. The wife is required to reach out three times and if the husband doesn't respond then the judge will assume that contact has been made and ignored and the divorce can proceed.

I thought that was only for summoning ghosts.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[Coren22]

Not likely. This is one of the areas where it is hard to get justice.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[bws111]

RTFA. The guy is deliberately making it hard for anyone to find him. That is not all that unusual. When such things happen, after several attempts to serve in person have failed, they post the notice somewhere you might see it (newspaper, Facebook, etc). Whether or not you actually see it at that point is nobodies concern. Seems that being a dick and making it so people can't find you does not get you out of your responsibilities.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[CanadianMacFan]

Isn't giving someone else access to your account against the terms and conditions of Facebook?

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[tompaulco]

Seems that being a dick and making it so people can't find you does not get you out of your responsibilities.

While that is certainly true, being a dick and not properly serving a notice does get you out of your responsibilities. Or at least it should. Millions in foreclosure in California never received any notices of foreclosure proceedings.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[JustNiz]

IANAL but I'm fairly sure the law doesn't change just because someone thinks you're being a dick, or because you're hiding.

Re:How do they know that he accepted it?

[sjames]

Yes, but we live in an age of expediency. The courts will be happy to assume you totally should have seen that notice taped to the 3rd elm to the left in the nice little park you've never been to and then insist that your ignorance is no excuse.

In many cases it is allowed to post it in the section of the newspaper that nobody reads or even subscribes to anymore.

In this particular case though, I don't know what else the court could do. He has no known physical address, employer or even phone number.

Still No Word...

[Greyfox]

There's still no word on delivering them via catapult. The law seems to frown on this particular method.

Re:Still No Word...

[cogeek]

Yeah, likewise with etching the notification of service on the side of a 9mm round.

Re:Still No Word...

[Aighearach]

Actually, you're wrong. Very wrong.

If you can arrange the catapult payload such that the papers will land in the persons hands, or the person will pick them up, and you can prove that they did, then it is totally valid. Just like, hiring somebody to pretend to be a utility worker with a work order, who hands them the papers and shouts, "You've been served!" is totally legit. That's the sort of crap that a creative litigant is encouraged to do in order to overcome procedural nonsense like avoiding service.

If you load the catapult with 1000 copies of the papers, even better. It gets harder and harder to claim you didn't know about the case even after you hired a bunch of people to clean up your yard. Be advised, their counter-suit might force you to pay for the cleanup.

Re:Still No Word...

[uncqual]

In the state I live in, it's sufficient to hand them to the person but if they don't take them, to just drop them on the ground at their feet.

Re:Still No Word...

[BadPirate]

I prefer delivery by crossbow bolt.

Other

[Geoffrey.landis]

But, assuming that he de-friended her, the message will just get stuck in the "other" folder. Might be years before he gets around to seeing it.

Re:Other

[RavenLrD20k]

Not that it matters much. If he doesn't see it in his inbox wherever the paperwork gets sent, too bad so sad for him. Courts routinely consider that if the notice is sufficiently displayed in a public forum where it's presumed the other party would be privy to it, then that party has been properly served and as such if they do not appear in court on the specified date then the judgement is defaulted in favor of the party who did appear.

Re:Other

[rgmoore]

This is important as a matter of principle. People shouldn't be allowed to duck out on the legal system by making themselves impossible to find. If you don't allow something like this, then the person who's trying to handle things responsibly through the legal system loses out because they don't get their day in court. One way or the other, somebody is not getting a chance to present their case. It makes sense for that somebody to be the one who's avoiding the process and who could present their side just by showing up rather than the one who is doing everything they can to handle things through the legal system.

Re:Other

[tompaulco]

Not that it matters much. If he doesn't see it in his inbox wherever the paperwork gets sent, too bad so sad for him. Courts routinely consider that if the notice is sufficiently displayed in a public forum where it's presumed the other party would be privy to it, then that party has been properly served and as such if they do not appear in court on the specified date then the judgement is defaulted in favor of the party who did appear.

If he doesn't see it in his inbox, then it has not been sufficiently served. You can't hold someone responsible to show up for a court date for which you have not made sufficient effort to make sure that the person is aware. I for one hardly ever glance at my inbox on Facebook as it is full of people re-re-re-re-forwarding things and blathering about what they had for dinner or other such useless nonsense. If anybody ever posts a personal message I will certainly miss it.
If the person is arrested for missing a court date, he has a valid excuse in that he was not properly served. The judge says he was, but the judge is wrong.

Re:Other

[rahvin112]

The person avoiding service is trying to exploit a protection of the legal system to avoid resolution. Judges take a dim view of this. As others have said the more aggressively you avoid service the more lenient the judge will be in allowing service. At some point the judge is just gonna let the claimant publish the service in the newspaper. Takes awhile and progressive levels of avoidance but it will happen. The beauty of it is you've avoided the service so well that you won't even know when the trial proceeds and you will lose by default. When you inevitably appeal the decision you will get lose because you avoided the service.

It's pretty easy to tell when someone is avoiding service, it looks a lot like hiding from the law and the courts recognize it very very well. Normal people aren't difficult to serve.

Re:Other

[RavenLrD20k]

So, say instead they had published the court summons in the newspaper over a matter of weeks instead and this person neither reads the paper for free in the library nor plumps down the $1.25 for the issue; according to you he has not been sufficiently served. The courts historically beg to differ, and the courts have historically made it clear that if you don't show up, regardless of method of summons, your loss is not able to be appealed. This is no different. If he doesn't read through his inbox, tough shit. He's been summoned. Court doesn't care that it gets in your hands, just that it's been sent and some authority states that it is so, whether it be the sheriff or a message box confirming "message sent." If he doesn't show up, case closed, summary judgement for the wife.

Re:Other

[rgmoore]

You can't hold someone responsible to show up for a court date for which you have not made sufficient effort to make sure that the person is aware.

The problem is that it sounds very much as if the husband is deliberately avoiding service. He is apparently still in contact with the wife by phone and Facebook, but claims to have no stable residence or workplace where he could be served with papers. The judge is allowing service on Facebook as a last resort because other ways of serving the papers are unavailable and his Facebook contact is known to be good. And, FWIW, if the wife is only able to contact her husband by phone and Facebook for years at a time, the divorce is a formality anyway; that marriage is long over.

What's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Twitter by sending your spouse #divorce?

Slashdot is King

[Anonymous Coward]

of re-posting articles that were posted on high-traffic websites 12+ hours ago.

Re:Slashdot is King

[quantaman]

of re-posting articles that were posted on high-traffic websites 12+ hours ago.

Welcome to the concept of news aggregation.

Chat in Facebook's iOS app has been broken for...

[Anonymous Coward]

for over six months! Look at the reviews, and there are more 1 stars than every other star combined because of this bug. Relying on Facebook, that can't fix their own damn chat in their own app is ridiculous.

USA behind the rest of the progressive world

[mi]

Islamic countries have allowed men to divorce their wives over SMS since, at least, 2003.

The US is so backwards...

Please, don't hate.

(Lrf, guvf vf n gebyy.)

Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world

[Aighearach]

My understanding is that in that context the divorce takes place when he's told her. It isn't a legal process. Any legal process that follows, as in your link, will only be asking if he told her. If a religious adviser to the court says that he told her, he told her. She has no rights, and her marriage exists at the whim of her husband.

Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world

[mi]

My understanding is that in that context the divorce takes place when he's told her. It isn't a legal process.

Yes. In other words, it is even better, than it appears at the first glance.

She has no rights

She does have rights, actually, though they are prescribed by custom and religion, rather than secular law.

her marriage exists at the whim of her husband

As opposite to?..

Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world

[Aighearach]

Right. So when you have only rights of custom and religion, and the discussion is about legal rights, then you have "no rights."

Don't misunderestimate your capacity to understand words.

Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world

[mi]

So when you have only rights of custom and religion, and the discussion is about legal rights, then you have "no rights."

I was not aware, our conversation limited itself solely to legal rights.

But even so, customary and religious law is not to be sneezed at — the "Do not kill" injunction, for example, survived far longer, than any secular state in human history.

And Muslim countries do have secular laws — or have elevated Sharia into the law of the land. We, descendants of the people, who thought up the First Amendment, (rightfully) frown upon such mixture of Religion and State, but it does not mean, Sharia is not a law. It is, and women aren't completely without rights under it.

Like

[DigiShaman]

*thumbs up*

Block

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's blocked her, it won't be delivered. Will the sender know?

Incompetent morons

[meerling]

They have a requirement to get those papers to the target, and I'm guessing a restriction on making those papers public.
So there are two really big problems with this:
Posting it to facebook may make it visible to lots of people it shouldn't.
Facebook is a piece of crap that often doesn't show things it should, so there is absolutely no guarantee the target will ever even see it.
I guess next those morons will broadcast it on tv.

Re:Incompetent morons

[Coren22]

From what I heard on the radio this morning, this service is supposed to happen over private message, not a wall posting. I think a wall posting would be funnier though.

Re:Incompetent morons

[bws111]

You do realize that the standard way of getting notices to people who can't be found is by posting a notice in the newspaper, don't you? Look in a newspaper in the classified ad section for 'legal notices'. You will find all kinds of things: taxes owed, foreclosure notices, divorces, lawsuits, etc.

Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account

[avandesande]

You could end up with a contempt of court charge or a default decision if you don't check it regularly.

Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account

[CanadianMacFan]

Or if they send it to the wrong person.

Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account

[bws111]

By the time it gets to this stage they have already given up on trying to find you. You are already on your way to a default judgement, this is just a courtesy to you to give you an opportunity to defend yourself. Getting rid of your Facebook account would do absolutely nothing to help you, it would just make it more likely you would never see a notice.

Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account

[MasseKid]

Bullshit, nothing in this suggests anything to that effect.

Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

indeed, until you try to get your driver's license renewed and are denied, or get pulled over for speeding and end up in jail for some "contempt of court", "failure to appear", etc bench warrant.

Data mining

[CanadianMacFan]

Great now Facebook can data mine that you are getting court papers and start serving up ads for divorce lawyers.

Re:Data mining

[Anonymous Coward]

You joke, but this could be very dangerous for people in abusive relationships.

If you thought that women being outed as pregnant by social media and targeted product advertising was bad, just wait until someone gets killed because social media and/or advertisers warned an abusive partner that the abusee was planning to leave. It's just a matter of time. When it happens, they should put the murder suspect and all of the C*Os of the social media and/or advertising companies on trial as co-conspirators.

Re:Data mining

[Anonymous Coward]

How else could the next marriage after the divorce end rapidly due to trust issues caused by Facebook? Bazingidae!

Re:Data mining

[Anonymous Coward]

When it happens, they should put the murder suspect and all of the C*Os of the social media and/or advertising companies on trial as co-conspirators.

You are forgetting that a company is only a person when it comes to voting rights and religious rights, not when it comes to crimes.

Don't want to sound like I'm nit-picking

[Anonymous Coward]

But IIRC allowing someone else access to your FB account is a violation of the sites ToS, so having the lawyer "serve" the papers may leave the husband with a loophole.

Re:Don't want to sound like I'm nit-picking

[sjames]

It may not be considered a violation since the lawyer is acting as her legal agent in this matter. That means that for the purposes of the TOS, she is the one accessing Facebook using her login.

Re:Don't want to sound like I'm nit-picking

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawyer is an officer of the court acting under a judges direct instruction. That trumps any TOS.

The birth of a new idiom

[bledri]

To "Throw the Facebook" at somebody.

Messenger as a separate app

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so I don't use Facebook for much, therefore I don't have the messenger app for my phone. The phone tells me that I have a message, from who, and about half a line of preview text in the alert, but the app doesn't let me view it. So assuming they're attempting to serve me over a message and not a wall post or something, if I don't have the messenger app and I don't log into the website proper, am I served?

ha?

[superwiz]

Facebook is incorporated in NY? I had no idea. Cause if they are not, the lawyer would be leaving messages on an out-of-state server somewhere. I also wonder how Facebook feels about a lawyer using the client's account. Oh, and how does the lawyer plan to verify that the person on the other end is the husband? But really, how do NY courts have jurisdiction over servers in California?

You have to light them on fire first

[rsilvergun]

that's why the law for it's called an "Ordinance".

The joke's on them.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a Facebook account.

I also don't have a wife. Going my own way and quite content.

just another reason in a long list to avoid FB

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so glad I deleted my Facebook account years ago (has to be at least 8 or 9 years ago now). Got sick of having to change my privacy settings every time they changed policy.

I know a lot of people, my contact list in my android phone has over 7,000 contacts (phone and emails). Facebook is full absolute drivel, the feeds are garbage, the likes mean nothing because of "like fraud" AND are a complete waste of time to participate in. Why anyone would actually find this Orwellian service that pimps your info to the highest, lowest and everything in between bidder, is totally beyond me.

muslim divorce

[Anonymous Coward]

If wonder if Muslim men can divorce their wives just by saying 3 times "i divorce you", does that work over FB too these days? Would be cool if it did..

just sending a message?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Yeah, non-friends that won't really work. Perhaps posting on their wall directly might work, but I'm betting their FB account is completely private already. I'll also bet that the lawyer probably paid the "not friends" fee Facebook charges...it's only $1 and can easily be added into the settlement. This can also work as a "delivery receipt" as Facebook itself should (but I've never paid to send a message so I don't really know) confirm it was delivered. The woman has probably already used every other listed means of communications without any response; Facebook probably wasn't the courts first choice but the last resort.

It's Complicated.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone is going to change their relationship status to "It's complicated"