Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Allows Divorce Papers To Be Served Via Facebook

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-unfriend-you dept.

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.

63 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not surprised by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:I'm not surprised by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:I'm not surprised by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Done. Easy as Pie.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:I'm not surprised by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the bitch cheats on you.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:I'm not surprised by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Or the asshole cheats on her.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  2. Not really out of the ordinary by ModernGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  3. Why bother? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Why bother? by neminem · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Why bother? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  4. Minimum Requirements by geekmux · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Minimum Requirements by ModernGeek · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    2. Re:Minimum Requirements by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Minimum Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  5. Can you blame her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Can you blame her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    2. Re:Can you blame her? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Can you blame her? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  6. How do they know that he accepted it? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by slazzy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    2. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by bws111 · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

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

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    4. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> 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.

    5. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:How do they know that he accepted it? by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. Still No Word... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Still No Word... by cogeek · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Still No Word... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Still No Word... by uncqual · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    4. Re:Still No Word... by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      I prefer delivery by crossbow bolt.

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
  8. Other by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Other by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Other by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    3. Re:Other by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Other by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Other by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Other by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  9. USA behind the rest of the progressive world by mi · · Score: 1

    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.)

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world by mi · · Score: 1

      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?..

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:USA behind the rest of the progressive world by mi · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. Like by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    *thumbs up*

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  11. Re:Slashdot is King by quantaman · · Score: 1

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

    Welcome to the concept of news aggregation.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  12. Incompetent morons by meerling · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Incompetent morons by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:Incompetent morons by bws111 · · Score: 1

      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.

  13. Re:Pretty standard actually by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    creative ways are implemented to manage it

    You aint lyin!

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  14. Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Or if they send it to the wrong person.

    2. Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account by MasseKid · · Score: 2

      Bullshit, nothing in this suggests anything to that effect.

    4. Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      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.

  15. Data mining by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  16. The birth of a new idiom by bledri · · Score: 1

    To "Throw the Facebook" at somebody.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  17. Re:Don't want to sound like I'm nit-picking by sjames · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. ha? by superwiz · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  19. You have to light them on fire first by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. just sending a message? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

    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.