The Colorado Supreme Court has ordered a Larimer County magistrate to explain why she could authorize a party to be notified solely by email about upcoming contempt proceedings.

Under the procedural rules for civil cases, when a person is subject to contempt of court, notice must be served “directly” upon them. Andrew Conners, who is facing the possibility of jail time for allegedly withholding payments to his ex-wife for child expenses, argued a contempt notice sent to his Gmail account did not satisfy that requirement.

“The notion of using email to deliver a contempt citation – the basis for a bench warrant if the intended recipient fails to appear – is unacceptable,” wrote his attorneys. The Supreme Court “should not deem ‘you’ve got mail’ to be fair warning that ‘you’ve got jail.'”

A process server attempted to deliver notification of the contempt proceeding to Conners at his known address in California, but could not locate him. His ex-wife’s attorney accused Conners of “playing games” in an “attempt to avoid accountability” for his financial obligations to his children.

In response to a request from Conners’ ex-wife, Magistrate Kandace B. Majoros authorized Conners to be served with the contempt of court paperwork through his personal email address.

Conners then appealed directly to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to interpret for the first time whether the requirement to “directly” serve someone with a contempt notice includes email as an option. He noted the judicial branch’s own paperwork appears to rule out the possibility of electronic service.

The goal of direct service, his lawyers argued, is to ensure the person facing contempt of court lays eyes on the notice.

In contrast, “sending an email does not guarantee that the message will ever actually be downloaded by the intended recipient,” Conners’ attorneys wrote. “Furthermore, internet users are inundated with voluminous email messages, and an email containing important legal notices can easily be overlooked, mistaken for junk mail, filtered out by an automated spam filter, or be sent to an email account the recipient no longer uses.”

If Majoros improperly authorized email service, they concluded, she would have no jurisdiction to punish Conners by finding him in contempt.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 3 ordered Majoros and Conners’ ex-wife to explain why it should not overturn the order allowing for email notification.

The case is In re the Marriage of Conners.