NJ & CT News

Since the data bore on whether the ex-spouse was cohabiting with a boyfriend, which was relevant to her eligibility for continued alimony, it fell under the litigation exception to the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), which otherwise prohibits disclosure without express consent of the person the data concerns.

The DPPA, passed in 1994 in response to the murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a fan who obtained her address through motor vehicle records, creates a federal civil remedy against those who unlawfully divulge data. Dismissing the DPPA count, the basis of federal jurisdiction, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas on Jan. 31 declined to take jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

The defendants were Paul Heitman, the detective agency he hired, Fitzgerald Investigations of Sparta, and a data mining company, Compinstall of Westtown, NY, which divulged to the detectives data about Heitman's ex, Margaret, and her alleged beau, Robert Dougherty. Fitzgerald obtained from Compinstall the couple's addresses and the year, make and model of their vehicles ' then monitored Margaret Heitman's activities for eight days in October 2011 before concluding she was living at Dougherty's home. Based on that report, Paul Heitman has moved in state court to be relieved of his $16,000-per-year alimony obligation, which is void if Margaret marries or moves in with a third party. She denies it.

The plaintiffs alleged that Compinstall violated the DPPA by obtaining their data from the N.J. Motor Vehicle Commission and supplying it to Fitzgerald without asking the reason it was requested.

The MVC and Compinstall stipulated in a contract that the company was “strictly prohibited from using Commission records to conduct surveillance or to investigate or locate an individual for reasons not specifically related to motor vehicle activity, including but not limited to divorce disputes.”

Irenas said Compinstall is an authorized recipient under the act because it made no use of the data itself but merely resold it. Absent a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on that point, Irenas cited Fifth and Seventh Circuit holdings that resellers are lawful recipients.

Irenas rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the MVC's restrictions reflected New Jersey intention to expand on the privacy rights of the DPPA. “While the genesis of this clause in the Compinstall-New Jersey contract is murky, a private contract between two parties is not a proper way for the State of New Jersey to legislate new privacy rights,” he said.

As for Fitzgerald, its reports were used in the alimony case, so it is entitled to the DPPA exception that allows disclosure of personal information “for use in connection with any civil, criminal administrative or arbitral proceeding in any federal, state or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body.”

He further held that investigation in anticipation of litigation fell within the bounds of the exception.

' Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal

Alimony System May See Reforms

New Jersey's Assembly Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved a measure to set up a commission that will study the State's alimony system. On the agenda will be discussion of trends in alimony awards, methods of enforcement and comparison with systems in other jurisdictions. First vice chair of New Jersey's Bar Association Family Law Section, Amanda Trigg, of Lesnevich & Marzano-Lesnevich in Hackensack, welcomed the move and pointed out some of the issues that need to be addressed; for instance, State laws currently do not address factors like an alimony recipient's cohabitation with a new partner or the length of time a payor must be unemployed before modification of an alimony award is warranted. These issues are ripe for clarification, according to Trigg, because they are “constant, day-to-day events in our trial courts, and repeatedly addressed by our Appellate Division to the best of their abilities with the given law.”

CONNECTICUT

Book Offers Advice for Those Going Through Divorce in CT

Attorney Renee Bauer, of Hamden's Bauer Law Group, has written a how-to book about Connecticut divorce aimed at the participants. The book is titled “Divorce in Connecticut” and is one of 26 similar state-specific divorce books currently published or in the works through publisher Addicus Books. “Eventually, we would like to have a book for each state,” says publisher Rod Colvin. Bauer explained that her Connecticut divorce book, written in simple, non-legalese language, is not meant as a substitute for formal legal advice but “it is designed to create a better understanding of the divorce process so people can maintain some peace throughout the divorce journey.” It answers such questions as what to do when a spouse is bad-mouthing you in social media, how to get through a settlement conference when you are still angry with your spouse, and whether a third party paying your legal fees is entitled to learn your personal information.

NEW JERSEY

Driver Privacy Law Not Flouted by Use of Data for Alimony Litigation

Disclosing motor vehicle records about an ex-spouse for use in alimony litigation does not violate a law designed to prevent misuse of public driver license databases, says a federal judge in Camden, in the case of Heitman v. Compinstall.

Since the data bore on whether the ex-spouse was cohabiting with a boyfriend, which was relevant to her eligibility for continued alimony, it fell under the litigation exception to the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), which otherwise prohibits disclosure without express consent of the person the data concerns.

The DPPA, passed in 1994 in response to the murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a fan who obtained her address through motor vehicle records, creates a federal civil remedy against those who unlawfully divulge data. Dismissing the DPPA count, the basis of federal jurisdiction, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas on Jan. 31 declined to take jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

The defendants were Paul Heitman, the detective agency he hired, Fitzgerald Investigations of Sparta, and a data mining company, Compinstall of Westtown, NY, which divulged to the detectives data about Heitman's ex, Margaret, and her alleged beau, Robert Dougherty. Fitzgerald obtained from Compinstall the couple's addresses and the year, make and model of their vehicles ' then monitored Margaret Heitman's activities for eight days in October 2011 before concluding she was living at Dougherty's home. Based on that report, Paul Heitman has moved in state court to be relieved of his $16,000-per-year alimony obligation, which is void if Margaret marries or moves in with a third party. She denies it.

The plaintiffs alleged that Compinstall violated the DPPA by obtaining their data from the N.J. Motor Vehicle Commission and supplying it to Fitzgerald without asking the reason it was requested.

The MVC and Compinstall stipulated in a contract that the company was “strictly prohibited from using Commission records to conduct surveillance or to investigate or locate an individual for reasons not specifically related to motor vehicle activity, including but not limited to divorce disputes.”

Irenas said Compinstall is an authorized recipient under the act because it made no use of the data itself but merely resold it. Absent a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on that point, Irenas cited Fifth and Seventh Circuit holdings that resellers are lawful recipients.

Irenas rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the MVC's restrictions reflected New Jersey intention to expand on the privacy rights of the DPPA. “While the genesis of this clause in the Compinstall-New Jersey contract is murky, a private contract between two parties is not a proper way for the State of New Jersey to legislate new privacy rights,” he said.

As for Fitzgerald, its reports were used in the alimony case, so it is entitled to the DPPA exception that allows disclosure of personal information “for use in connection with any civil, criminal administrative or arbitral proceeding in any federal, state or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body.”

He further held that investigation in anticipation of litigation fell within the bounds of the exception.

' Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal

Alimony System May See Reforms

New Jersey's Assembly Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved a measure to set up a commission that will study the State's alimony system. On the agenda will be discussion of trends in alimony awards, methods of enforcement and comparison with systems in other jurisdictions. First vice chair of New Jersey's Bar Association Family Law Section, Amanda Trigg, of Lesnevich & Marzano-Lesnevich in Hackensack, welcomed the move and pointed out some of the issues that need to be addressed; for instance, State laws currently do not address factors like an alimony recipient's cohabitation with a new partner or the length of time a payor must be unemployed before modification of an alimony award is warranted. These issues are ripe for clarification, according to Trigg, because they are “constant, day-to-day events in our trial courts, and repeatedly addressed by our Appellate Division to the best of their abilities with the given law.”

CONNECTICUT

Book Offers Advice for Those Going Through Divorce in CT

Attorney Renee Bauer, of Hamden's Bauer Law Group, has written a how-to book about Connecticut divorce aimed at the participants. The book is titled “Divorce in Connecticut” and is one of 26 similar state-specific divorce books currently published or in the works through publisher Addicus Books. “Eventually, we would like to have a book for each state,” says publisher Rod Colvin. Bauer explained that her Connecticut divorce book, written in simple, non-legalese language, is not meant as a substitute for formal legal advice but “it is designed to create a better understanding of the divorce process so people can maintain some peace throughout the divorce journey.” It answers such questions as what to do when a spouse is bad-mouthing you in social media, how to get through a settlement conference when you are still angry with your spouse, and whether a third party paying your legal fees is entitled to learn your personal information.