Judge Allows Divorce Papers To Be Served Via Facebook 95
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.
I'm not surprised (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org].
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, 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.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Next, one spouse will just have to proclaim loudly, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee!"
Done. Easy as Pie.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the bitch cheats on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the asshole cheats on her.
Not really out of the ordinary (Score:5, 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.
Other (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (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 ju
Re: (Score:3)
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 proc
Re: (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.
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 miss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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 unavai
Why bother? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Minimum Requirements (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
IT Systems Administrators have been officiating weddings ever since the creation of the Universal Life Church [themonastery.org] some years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
just wait until 'friending' someone is equated to a common law marriage (which is a legal union in several states).
Can you blame her? (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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It actually sounds as if she married a World Of Warcraft character, hence the need for the online divorce proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Ukrainian Mafia to me, either that or a vampire. Either way I wouldn't want to serve them either.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
creative ways are implemented to manage it
You aint lyin! [youtu.be]
How do they know that he accepted it? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I wonder if this would work trying to serve the Crazy Bitch, errr, I mean my exwife papers for back child support.
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely. This is one of the areas where it is hard to get justice.
Re: (Score:2)
>> 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Isn't giving someone else access to your account against the terms and conditions of Facebook?
Still No Word... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You have to light them on fire first (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer delivery by crossbow bolt.
Re: (Score:2)
of re-posting articles that were posted on high-traffic websites 12+ hours ago.
Welcome to the concept of news aggregation.
USA behind the rest of the progressive world (Score:2)
Islamic countries have allowed men to divorce their wives over SMS [cnn.com] since, at least, 2003.
The US is so backwards...
Please, don't hate.
(Lrf, guvf vf n gebyy.)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Yes. In other words, it is even better, than it appears at the first glance.
She does have rights [wmlawandpractice.com], actually, though they are prescribed by custom and religion, rather than secular law.
As opposite to?..
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 thoug
Re: (Score:2)
Incompetent morons (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
You could end up with a contempt of court charge or a default decision if you don't check it regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if they send it to the wrong person.
Re:Good reason to get rid of your Facebook Account (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Data mining (Score:5, Funny)
Great now Facebook can data mine that you are getting court papers and start serving up ads for divorce lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The birth of a new idiom (Score:2)
ha? (Score:2)
just sending a message? (Score:3)