Can’t track down your M.I.A. soon-to-be-ex-spouse? You can finally go ahead and change your Relationship Status from ‘Married’ to ‘It’s Complicated’—New York says you can serve divorce papers via Facebook.
Last week, a New York court ruled that a woman could serve divorce papers through a Facebook direct message, since Ellenora Baidoo was having some serious issues getting in touch with her husband, Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku.
The two got married in a civil ceremony back in ’09, but they never had an actual wedding ceremony or celebration. You might not think that’s the worst thing since the top hit that year was the Black Eyed Peas’ “Boom Boom Pow,” but that stuff was pretty important to them—they agreed not live together or consummate the marriage until they had a traditional Ghanian wedding.
The ceremony never happened, and Blood-Dzraku literally dropped off the face of the earth. The guy had no locatable address or place of employment—even private investigators couldn’t find him. This became a major issue when Baidoo wanted to file for divorce, since service of process is essential for a court to hear your case. And since Facebook was one of the few ways Baidoo had ever heard from her hubby, the court gave her the green flag to use the social media site to serve him.
The Boring Stuff: A Brief History Lesson
Service of process generally means delivering a summons and complaint to the defending party. In our digital communication age, it might be hard to understand why people are making such a big deal about service via Facebook.
Historically, in-person service has been considered part of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. It’s like a pseudo constitutional right. Courts don’t have jurisdiction over a case—the power to make a decision—until process has been served on the defendant. The the point is to make sure the defending party gets what the law calls “notice and opportunity to be heard“—notice that they’re being sued, and the opportunity to defend themselves. And the only way to 100% guarantee you’ve covered those bases is putting that service of process right in the defendant’s hands.
But, recognizing that it’s no easy feat to serve process in person sometimes, courts started making exceptions to the in-person service rule for when you really, really can’t find someone. Today, courts allow substituted service—service of process that’s not in person—when it’s deemed necessary and the method is authorized by that jurisdiction’s laws. Some tried and true methods of substituted service have gotten the a-ok, like service to another adult at your home or your place of work, or what New York calls the “nail and mail” method—nailing it to their home or work door and mailing them a copy.
The Juicy Stuff: From Face-to-Face to Facebook
So, how did we get from face-to-face service of process to service via Facebook messenger? If the pre-authorized service methods just aren’t doing it for you, a lot of states let you ask special permission to serve process in an alternative way. In rare circumstances, courts have granted parties permission to serve process via e-mail. And Baidoo’s case isn’t the first case to allow service via social media. But, courts have been split, and the approvals required some work. Courts that allowed social media service added some extra conditions, like requiring a second method, or limiting it to foreign defendants.
Baidoo had to show three things for the court to ‘like’ her Facebook service idea:
- inability to serve process in person;
- inability to use pre-approved methods of alternative service; and
- that her method was reasonably calculated to reach the defendant.
The court said Baidoo clearly showed that she couldn’t use in-person service or traditional methods of substitute service, since even Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t be able to find a home or work address for Blood-Dzraku. But the “reasonably calculated to reach him” prong had its own set of requirements:
- proving the Facebook account belonged to him; and
- proving he uses it often enough that he’d see the message.
Through affidavits, photo identification, and copies of Facebook conversations, Baidoo passed both of the court’s tests. She also got permission not to supplement her Facebook service with a second method, since Blood-Dzraku didn’t even have an e-mail address, and the more traditional notice-by-newspaper-publication is “almost guaranteed not to provide a defendant with notice of the action” anyways.
What’s the “Status?”
Though the case has been blowing up the news, take the headlines with a grain of salt. A close look at the opinion shows just how rare a circumstance it will take for authorized Facebook service. But for those rare circumstances, it’s an exciting step towards integrating law and technology.
Robot Lawyer 