Mar
28
NEW SERIES: Wiretapping and Divorce Law
Filed Under Assets & Debts, Divorce & Separation, Family Law Basics | Leave a Comment
Clients often ask me if secretly recording a spouse’s telephone conversations or accessing a spouse’s emails or text messages is against the law. I take a deep breath whenever I hear these questions because there is never a simple answer. The advancements in technology and the ease in which people communicate nowadays have resulted in a dramatic increase in incidents involving interspousal spying. In divorce cases, suspicion of infidelity usually serves as the impetus for clandestine monitoring of a spouse’s telephone calls, Internet activity, email transmissions and text messages. However, the act of intercepting the oral or electronic communications of a spouse may constitute a violation of both federal and state wiretapping statutes; statutes most clients are not aware of.
In New Jersey, a violation of the wiretapping statute gives rise to a cause of action and may result in both criminal and civil penalties. Generally, it is not a violation of federal and state wiretapping laws to record a conversation to which you are a party. However, secretly taping or recording the conversations of others, particularly an unsuspecting spouse, is. All to often, spouses looking for leverage in their divorce cases will resort to wiretapping to prove adultery or other acts of conduct likely to damage a spouse’s credibility at trial. Unfortunately, evidence obtained in violation of the state’s wiretapping statute is not only illegal, but also inadmissible at trial. In fact, clients who present such evidence to me are advised to immediately destroy any and all recordings and are further advised that they may have violated the law.
The issue of whether recording a spouse’s telephone conversations with a third party is a violation of the state’s wiretapping statute was addressed in the case of M.G. v. J.C., 254 N.J. Super. 470 (Ch. Div. 1991). In M.G., the husband had recorded his wife’s telephone conversations with her paramour within the marital home. The court held that is was a violation of the state’s wiretapping statute for the husband to surreptitiously record the telephone conversations of his wife with a third party. The court reasoned that the “right of privacy extends within the confines of the marital home” and that the act of recording a spouse’s telephone conversations constitutes a “severe invasion of privacy in a most egregious fashion.” The court awarded the wife $10,000.00 in compensatory damages, $50,000.00 in punitive damages, as well as $5,000.00 in attorney fees.
A spouse in a divorce action whose privacy was violated can file a civil action against the offending spouse on the grounds of invasion of privacy, which is a common-law tort in New Jersey. These types of claims, known as Tevis claims, are consolidated with the divorce matter and tried together. If the invasion of privacy claim is substantiated, then the offending spouse could be subject to substantial monetary damages, which could be collected by an offset against the marital assets. Moreover, a violation of the state’s wiretapping statute may also expose an offending spouse to criminal charges.
Up Next: Internet and Email Transmissions
Posted by Jason Medina,
Medina, Martinez & Castroll, LLC
Oct
3
Selling Everything That’s Not Nailed Down
Filed Under Assets & Debts, Divorce & Separation, Property & Asset Distribution | Leave a Comment
Those of you familiar with the NFL and the New York Giants will recognize Michael Strahan. You may have also heard about the nasty divorce proceeding he’s going through with his wife. I have no feelings on this divorce one way or the other, but this post from Charles Abut’s New Jersey Family Law Blog highlights some of the things going on in that case. Specifically, Strahan is arguing that everything be sold at auction. Here’s a snippet:
Even the Strahans’ twin 2-year-old daughters’ bed was sold off by the New Jersey divorce judge, at the insistence of their NFL-star father. The bed went for $8,750 in the auction to divide the assets of Jean and Michael Strahan after their prolonged divorce. Before the auction, Jean said she wanted the bed - it was only expected to go for about $3,000, but she got into a price war with another bidder. Since she gets half of all of the proceeds of the auction anyway, she wasn’t too concerned. “It was a good battle, but I paid $16,000 for [the bed],” she said. More than 220 items from the couple’s 7 -year marriage - including the bed and the family’s 8 -foot, walnut kitchen table - were on the block. In court, Jean had asked Michael to let her temporarily keep the furniture in the home she shares with their twins until she sells the house. But the sack king - who astonished the divorce-court judge when he argued that even his daughters’ baptismal cradle, chairs and other personal items should be sold off - refused.
Now, what you might not know is that Strahan and his wife were avid antique collectors. So, the cradle is not a Babies R Us special and I would venture to guess that most of the stuff in the house going up for auction has value beyond the normal furniture and personalty divided pursuant to a divorce.
Posted by Victor J. Medina,
Medina, Martinez & Castroll, LLC
Sep
18
First Post
Filed Under Adoption & Guardianship, Alimony, Alternative Roads in Family Law, Assets & Debts, Attorney-Client Relationship, Child Custody & Visitation, Child Support, Divorce & Separation, Domestic Abuse, Family Law Basics, Father's Rights in Family Law, Impact on Children, Marriage & Family, Mediation & Collaboration in Family Law, Property & Asset Distribution | Leave a Comment
It seems that every weblog starts with a post called “First Post” and I don’t want to jinx the success of this blog by deviating from the standard. Not to mention, this gives me a chance to test the blog. So, here’s “First Post” - this is going to be a great resource for family law, especially in New Jersey.