It makes no difference if the court sees OP as a good guy or a bad guy. It's a matter of law and facts plain and simple. Besides, the issue of the passwords wouldn't even come up in a divorce proceeding. It would be irrelevant.
Printable View
It makes no difference if the court sees OP as a good guy or a bad guy. It's a matter of law and facts plain and simple. Besides, the issue of the passwords wouldn't even come up in a divorce proceeding. It would be irrelevant.
I don't think budwad was suggesting it wouldn't hurt me in the divorce, but that he was addressing the separate matter since she intends to take me to non-divorce court to handle it. But I think I further understand your point now. Whether or not I was obligated from a labor law perspective, the priority should be how I come off in the divorce matter above all else. Regardless if I could win the labor case, letting this go to labor court would lose me the divorce case for sure. If that's your point, I find it quite convincing. Having conceded so much to her bullying to date, it's still more important that I maintain good faith on my end regardless of what I'm eating in return in hopes that divorce court will recognize that and help me make my stand at that point, but now, with this, it's not the right time.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but since nobody anointed you arbitrator of truth, I disagree. What OP does as a fired employee will have no impact on his divorce. He doesn't have to please the court to get an equitable distribution based in law and fact.
You are just not getting it. Your divorce proceeding have nothing to do with your obligation to the business. You were fired and are no longer an employee. You don't have a contract that survives beyond your termination. You have no obligations to the business. If you Ex wants to file some sort of action against you for some sort of breach of contract or interfering with economic gain of the business then let her do it. But chances are she doesn't have a cause of action.
Stop viewing your divorce in the light of the business dispute. It doesn't matter no matter what llworking says.
That means that when the time comes the value of the business and who put what into the business will be decided. Nothing you do now will impact that.Quote:
Assets are not immune from equitable distribution simply because they are owned by a corporate entity. Scherzer v. Scherzer, 136 N.J. Super. 397, 400 (App. Div. 1975). Indeed, business assets, including those held in corporate form or as a sole proprietorship, are subject to equitable distribution. Ibid.
At least in one state withholding computer passwords from a former employer is a criminal act. And while that state is not the OP's state there may be a similar law in NJ.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgol.../#1bd52e4423bb
As far as I can determine NJ has no such rule and shutting down an entire network is a far cry from accessing a work station. And you should also notice that that an employee is not required to disclose personal passwords according to that article.
For all we know a single workstation is an entire network at this employer. But NJ Rev Stat § 2C:20-25 (2019) in part says this.
Quote:
b. Alters, damages or destroys any data, data base, computer, computer storage medium, computer program, computer software, computer system or computer network, or denies, disrupts or impairs computer services, including access to any part of the Internet, that are available to any other user of the computer services;
The workstation was basically a backup for data that all exists elsewhere, either on cloud data storage or on other workstations. But somehow this is causing her "great financial harm." It's like she's already forgotten we've worked together quite closely for the past few years so I know for a fact, this is nothing more than a matter of convenience and certainly no financial threat to the asset.
However, PayrolGuy's research does still make it sound like not worth making this a big deal:
4.A person is guilty of computer criminal activity if the person purposely or knowingly and without authorization, or in excess of authorization ... denies, disrupts or impairs computer services, including access to any part of the Internet, that are available to any other user of the computer services;
As for interpretation of this clause, "that are available to any other user of the computer services" sounds like it would clear me as not accessing that one workstation does not affect regular flow of business nor to what people regularly access on a daily basis. As I've said, it's a data backup computer. However, it's the "in excess of authorization ... denies" which wasn't applicable while I was employed but could be interpreted against me now that I'm not, that it may be worth it to just let this one go and focus on the bigger battles ahead.
Also to clarify how she's phrasing things, she's accusing me of messing with her operations, completely forgoing the fact that she has already and permanently messed with my employment and income by terminating me. In doing so, she messed with her own operation by removing a rather essential cog in her operations and not replacing it first. Why am I responsible for her mistakes?
Then she went on saying I am not cooperating with the exit of my employment so she is therefore pursing legal action. She always phrases things certain ways to reflect legal tidbits she dug up on the internet. Does anyone know what actual statute she's referring to? Reminder: There was no employment contract nor termination agreement. Just a "oh you were already fired weeks ago when the furlough started" mentioned in passing at divorce mediation.
Unless you are actively doing something after your termination to deny her access to her data, you are not breaking the law.