Jump to content

texas facebook proof of service


Recommended Posts

Guest usctrojanalum

I used to serve a lot of process as my main income, this would be a game changer. would make costs go way down and profits way up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lawsuit over it....

 

  • A person registering for a social networking profile may not be who he or she claims to be
  • Infrequent users of social media accounts may not receive actual notice

In its opinion in Griffin v. Maryland, 419 Md. 343 (2011), Maryland’s highest court recently discussed the need for authentication of social media evidence. The court held that just because a social media profile appears to be real and genuine does not necessarily make it so. An attorney must do proper due diligence to ensure that a social media account actually belongs to the person to be served.

 

In Fortunato v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.,

The Court did not agree that service by a Facebook message, email to the address listed on the Facebook profile, and delivery of the summons and complaint to the mother were all reasonably calculated to notify the estranged daughter of the litigation. Fortunato, at *6-7.

The Court stated the following:

Service by Facebook is unorthodox to say the least, and this Court is unaware of any other court that has authorized such service. Furthermore, in those cases where service by email has been judicially approved, the movant supplied the Court with some facts indicating that the person to be served would be likely to receive the summons and complaint at the given email address. Here, Chase has not set forth any facts that would give the Court a degree of certainty that the Facebook profile its investigator located is in fact maintained by Nicole or that the email address listed on the Facebook profile is operational and accessed by Nicole. Indeed, the Court’s understanding is that anyone can make a Facebook profile using real, fake, or incomplete information, and thus, there is no way for the Court to confirm whether the Nicole Fortunato the investigator found is in fact the third-party Defendant to be served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than half of Facebook accounts have not been accessed in over a year.  These would be like Fadebook accounts.

 

I personally do not have a Facebook account.  But there are a few dozen with the same name as my legal name.

 

IMHO, even the newspaper service should be treated as sewer service for individuals other than attorneys.  Eventually that may be moot as most people already disregard newspapers as a source of news, so it should come about in time to remove that as legal service.  ANY alternate service "because I can't find the plaintiff" really needs to be struck down so the courts can carry out real justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with due justice is that the plaintiff has a right to justice as much as the defendant and if you remove any method of alternate service, it will be too easy to skip out on a debt and hide. There needs to be a method for the plaintiff to obtain justice in those cases too.

That said, I cannot see Facebook being a proper way to serve someone UNLESS it can be proven that the account user is the real defendant and that is the only way to serve them. I would also have to wonder if it would take a government forcing people to use social media in their real name to make this valid too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

I do not see their being an issue with service by social media so long as you follow up that service with at least two additional mailings to the last known address.  The laws as they are written now are pretty archaic, and it's very rare that you actually see the law catch up to technology. I'm all about using technology to makes things easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with due justice is that the plaintiff has a right to justice as much as the defendant and if you remove any method of alternate service, it will be too easy to skip out on a debt and hide. There needs to be a method for the plaintiff to obtain justice in those cases too.

That said, I cannot see Facebook being a proper way to serve someone UNLESS it can be proven that the account user is the real defendant and that is the only way to serve them. I would also have to wonder if it would take a government forcing people to use social media in their real name to make this valid too.

I think they tried this with Facebook because it requires your "real name".   But of course that is relative.  I don't electronic service can go through a comercial enterprise.  But you know the USPS already offers online mail hold.  It might just their next level to offer "electronic delivery" to people between addresses.   but other than that I think newspapers are more fair (even if no one reads them)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they tried this with Facebook because it requires your "real name".  

Not so....

 

A couple of seasons ago we had multiple facebook accounts under various names.

 

Reason... so we could log in and vote for our favorite on Dancing With the Stars, LOL.

 

I know of others who also are there with other names, too.

 

I do have an account but stopped using it a couple of years ago.

 

In truth... I would prefer this, or mail, for service to avoid it coming to the home with nosy

neighbors, and family that should not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a couple problems with this...

 

#1 - Due diligence... how is a potential plaintiff going to verify that a Facebook profile is actually you? They can't - for many with common names that live in big cities, their idea of due diligence will be "pick one." I can foresee a lot of court hearings for vacting defaults for bad Facebook service...

 

#2. I see a lot of potential liability opening up for Facebook - who, if a lawyer is smart, convinces a court that in that capacity are acting as a debt collector and subject to the FDCPA. And if they are storing court documents and financial info on their servers, this could make them a de facto CRA - and subject them to the FCRA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with due justice is that the plaintiff has a right to justice as much as the defendant and if you remove any method of alternate service, it will be too easy to skip out on a debt and hide. There needs to be a method for the plaintiff to obtain justice in those cases too.

That said, I cannot see Facebook being a proper way to serve someone UNLESS it can be proven that the account user is the real defendant and that is the only way to serve them. I would also have to wonder if it would take a government forcing people to use social media in their real name to make this valid too.

until all newspapers are dead, I am not sure it is a necessity to use facebook.  I am a po at a juvenile court.  I serve summonses and use social media.  I send messages on facebook to runaways.  I have said come in or sh*t will get serious but thats not's service.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so....

 

A couple of seasons ago we had multiple facebook accounts under various names.

 

Reason... so we could log in and vote for our favorite on Dancing With the Stars, LOL.

 

I know of others who also are there with other names, too.

 

I do have an account but stopped using it a couple of years ago.

 

In truth... I would prefer this, or mail, for service to avoid it coming to the home with nosy

neighbors, and family that should not know.

in theory facebook wants your real name and they will close/delete fake accounts but in reality they can't    What do you think about USPS online? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with due justice is that the plaintiff has a right to justice as much as the defendant and if you remove any method of alternate service, it will be too easy to skip out on a debt and hide. There needs to be a method for the plaintiff to obtain justice in those cases too.

That said, I cannot see Facebook being a proper way to serve someone UNLESS it can be proven that the account user is the real defendant and that is the only way to serve them. I would also have to wonder if it would take a government forcing people to use social media in their real name to make this valid too.

 

I would agree that plaintiff needs justice, too.  But I would always argue that it is not justice if the plaintiff just gets to make the claim without anyone challenging it.  If the defendant cannot be found, that does not mean they are trying to skip out on the debt.  It could mean the plaintiff is playing fast and loose with the court.  This is slanted too much to the plaintiff.  It does not fit "equal justice".

 

The sad thing about this is that alternate service in a newspaper does not prove that the defendant read it, either.  I'm just as opposed to that kind of alternate service, too.  It's non-justice to me.  I consider it an avoidance of due process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there is the whole disclosure of a debt to third parties issue as a complaint isn't necessarily public record until AFTER IT IS SERVED. Nice way to countersue and emotional distress especially if the plaintiff loses.

 

works two ways you could serve federal FDCPA complaints like that and collect default judgments every day. serve on facebook without paying gget into the other box and then 30 days later default next day default, day after default, and so on. if they call after so many calls in a week next call facebook served.

 

It will become the great american sue everyone week until the supreme court stops it because the courts are clogged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate hurdle remains establishing that notice will "reasonably" get to the defendant, as required by the Constitution. Email is a bit like the bumble bee in that we should not be surprise that we lose some email, rather we should be surprised we do not lose much more email. The SMTP protocol for email transmission has very little error checking and no error correction capabilities.

 

Facebook terms of service require a users real name, however Facebook also has no ability to check that information. Additionally some people will use a "throw away" email address for signing up to new services. Typically these accounts will not be used or checked regularly since the idea is to direct all SPAM to this address as a result for signing up to the service and avoiding SPAM overload to the primary email address.

 

I have thrown away dozens of email address in the last 10 years and it takes a minute or two to setup a new Hotmail or gmail account under anyone's name. If someone managed to get my email from another one of the Consumer Advocate sites, it would not be valid. Also if they mailed something to that address, the provider deletes email to nonexistent accounts so they would not know if it was delivered or not. This is common practice now due to the way that Spammers work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that plaintiff needs justice, too.  But I would always argue that it is not justice if the plaintiff just gets to make the claim without anyone challenging it.  If the defendant cannot be found, that does not mean they are trying to skip out on the debt.  It could mean the plaintiff is playing fast and loose with the court.  This is slanted too much to the plaintiff.  It does not fit "equal justice".

 

The sad thing about this is that alternate service in a newspaper does not prove that the defendant read it, either.  I'm just as opposed to that kind of alternate service, too.  It's non-justice to me.  I consider it an avoidance of due process.

 

But is it justice that a defendant can run and hide and once that happens, the plaintiff cannot do anything? I know it is harder to do in today's society but not entirely impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.