{"id":5025,"date":"2017-02-21T13:42:33","date_gmt":"2017-02-21T17:42:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=5025"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:56","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:56","slug":"the-facebook-divorce","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/the-facebook-divorce\/","title":{"rendered":"The Facebook Divorce"},"content":{"rendered":"

At least one judge in New York has ruled that a person seeking a divorce may serve the spouse with divorce papers via Facebook<\/a>.\u00a0 Facebook breakups have long been the source of gossip and relationship lore.\u00a0 But divorce papers? Is that taking it too far?<\/p>\n

Maybe not, maybe Facebook divorce just makes sense.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One advantage is that it is free.\u00a0 No investigator is needed.\u00a0 With notice through Facebook, no one needs to scour apartment buildings or grocery stores to find the service target.\u00a0 No newspaper advertisements are needed.\u00a0 The law surrounding service of papers has required, in the absence of person to person service, an advertisement be taken out in a newspaper that is reasonably calculated to serve the target\u2019s residential area.\u00a0 Newspaper ads costs money, especially in areas where national or international newspapers serve that area, like Brooklyn or Manhattan<\/a>.\u00a0 The ad could cost thousands and ultimately not notify the target of the service if it goes unread.\u00a0 A Facebook message, on the other hand, costs nothing.
\nAnother advantage of Facebook notice is that it avoids the need for a current address.\u00a0 In the event a spouse flees the area, or country, in a separation, it may be difficult to find a current address for that person.\u00a0 Facebook avoids that problem by reaching them online.
\nElectronic notice methods, like person to person notice, can be arranged to provide a \u201cread receipt\u201d or a \u201creceived\u201d notice once the correspondence is opened by the recipient.
\nOn a practical note, Facebook is for some the first thing they look at everyday.\u00a0 Over 51% of the U.S. population<\/a> uses Facebook, spending an average of 40 minutes per day on the site.\u00a0 For active users, perhaps the most reliable method of notification is in fact, through Facebook.
\nThe first challenge to Facebook notice is that the intended recipient may not actively use the site.\u00a0 Perhaps the user only checks the site monthly.\u00a0 Or perhaps the recipient formed a Facebook profile but abandoned it<\/a> years ago.
\nThere are also online break up tools<\/a> that hinder Facebook notice.\u00a0 Facebook provides a few of these tools itself, by offering to purge pictures and posts that involve the ex in question.\u00a0 Other applications such as KillSwitch and Ex Lover Blocker help lovers get over break ups.\u00a0 These tools, among other things, can block correspondence from an ex.\u00a0 Facebook notice in such a situation would be ineffectual.
\nOnline deceptions will also plague Facebook<\/a> notice.\u00a0 There is no 100% accurate and surefire way to confirm that the person that sits at the machine at the other end of the electronic correspondence is the intended recipient.
\nAs a result of the above challenges, some judges have rejected Facebook<\/a> notice, preferring traditional person to person, certified mail and publication notice.
\nCourts have developed a legal test to accommodate the advantages of Facebook notice while at the same time mitigating its challenges.\u00a0 The courts that have permitted its use have done so if the Facebook notice was \u201creasonably calculated to give effective notice and other alternatives were impractical.\u201d <\/a>
\nNotice is not \u201creasonably calculated\u201d to give effective notice if the intended recipient infrequently visits Facebook or altogether abandoned its use.\u00a0 Additionally, at least one court required that for Facebook notice to be used, the party offering its use must provide affirmative evidence that the would-be recipient regularly visits the site.\u00a0 Evidence of daily posts or message traffic could satisfy this burden.\u00a0 All courts have at least required a showing that the recipient has not abandoned the site altogether.
\nThe \u201cother alternatives\u201d mentioned in the legal rule suggested by the courts include person to person, certified mail, email, and newspaper publication notice.\u00a0 The courts that have contemplated Facebook notice largely agree that the traditional notice methods remain superior to Facebook notice in reliability.
\nNewspaper publication notice is not likely to remain a favored method.\u00a0 Print newspaper sales continue to decline<\/a>, and electronic news and communications mediums stand in replacement.\u00a0 The decline of newspaper sales means newspaper notice is less and less effective.\u00a0 In time, courts are likely to recognize social media notice as superior to\u00a0 newspaper publication notice<\/a>.
\nPerson to person notice will likely remain the preferred method.\u00a0 It offers the strongest confirmation that he message reached the intended recipient.\u00a0 However, perhaps with time, social media notice may advance past certified mail or gain parity with it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At least one judge in New York has ruled that a person seeking a divorce may serve the spouse with divorce papers via Facebook.\u00a0 Facebook breakups have long been the source of gossip and relationship lore.\u00a0 But divorce papers? Is that taking it too far? Maybe not, maybe Facebook divorce just makes sense. One advantage …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5026,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5025"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5025"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5025\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7106,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5025\/revisions\/7106"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5026"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}