Can I be served with a summons for divorce on Facebook?


Can I be served with a summons for divorce on Facebook?


A trend is developing—the law is embracing technology and social media. One example of this is when a New York judge authorized the service of legal papers regarding the modification of a child support order through Facebook. In another case, the one we're looking at in this post, a New York court allowed a defendant in a divorce to be served through Facebook.

All cases begin with the service of a summons. In a New York divorce, the defendant must be personally served with the summons, reflecting the importance of allowing a party to offer a defense in a case that could have immeasurable financial and familial consequences.

Problems arise when one spouse cannot be located and, therefore, cannot be personally served. Parties could seek permission to make an alternative service and, as a last resort, service by publication when (after a diligent inquiry) a party could not be located. The problem with service by publication is that not only is this means of service expensive, but it is completely ineffective. Defendants rarely get notice of the pending divorce from a newspaper ad. Because honestly, who actually reads the legal classified ads in the Irish Echo?

So, in a New York County case, a wife was permitted to serve her husband by direct message through Facebook after she was able to prove that:

  1. She was unable to personally serve the summons to the defendant.
  2. It would be "impracticable" to serve him by "substitute service" (service on a person of suitable age and discretion, or "nail and mail").
  3. Sending the summons through Facebook would reasonably be expected to give the defendant actual notice that he is being sued for divorce.

In the case, the defendant had never resided in New York, had no last-known address or place of employment, refused to reveal to plaintiff where he lived, and was unregistered with the department of motor vehicles. In short, but for his Facebook presence, he could not be found. That there was a Facebook account in the defendant’s name was not alone sufficient to permit service through Facebook. The plaintiff had to satisfy the court that:

  1. The Facebook account actually belonged to the defendant.
  2. The defendant logged into the account with some regularity so that he would actually get notice of the divorce.

If these two conditions can be satisfied, service through Facebook should be a preferred method of alternative service over service by publication. Not only is it likely to actually apprise a defendant of the divorce, but it is far less expensive than a legal classified ad.

It will be interesting to see just how far courts will be willing to go in permitting service through social media. Will we soon be direct tweeting summons in 140-character messages? Will a picture of a summons on a photo sharing site constitute good service?

This question was originally posted at The writer retains all copyrights.

Have a question? Ask us here.

View all questions from Daniel E Clement.

Share this:
Written by Daniel E Clement
Profile Picture of Daniel E Clement
Daniel E. Clement is a divorce and family law attorney who has been practicing since 1986 and blogging at the New York Divorce Report since 2006. Daniel uses his in-depth experience to provide sensitive representation for his clients during an emotional and challenging time in their lives. Daniel writes and lectures on family law issues, and he is sought after as an expert in the field by print, television and radio journalists. He represents a wide range of clients frequently needing help with a divorce or a pre-nuptial agreement. Daniel focuses on educating his clients on family law so they're empowered to make decisions and understand what they're owed. Full Bio

Email Newsletter

Join thousands of others who receive our weekly newsletter full of legal content and insights.