Son wins US lawsuit against parents who threw out his porn collection

[airplanemechanic]

A man who sued his parents for getting rid of his pornography collection has won a lawsuit in western Michigan and can seek compensation. The US district judge Paul Maloney ruled in favour of David Werking, who said his parents had no right to throw out his collection. He lived at their Grand Haven home for 10 months after a divorce before moving to Muncie, Indiana.

Werking said boxes of films and magazines worth an estimated $29,000 (£21,500) were missing. “There is no question that the destroyed property was David’s property,” Maloney said. “Defendants repeatedly admitted that they destroyed the property.”

Werking’s parents said they had a right to act as his landlords. “Defendants do not cite to any statute or case law to support their assertion that landlords can destroy property that they dislike,” the judge said.

Son wins US lawsuit after parents destroy his porn collection

David Werking can seek damages after parents got rid of films and magazines worth $29,000

www.theguardian.com

While I admit the parents should have never thrown away this guys property, isn't he being a little ungrateful for them taking him in for nearly a year during a time of need, and then suing them in court? While the parents could have told him to find a different place for his porn, he should know his parents well enough to anticipate their rejection of his hobby. What I don't understand is a porn collection. 30 years ago? Yeah, perhaps, but who collects porn these days when we all have access to the internet and can watch or see just about anything we want?

I'd like to have seen the trial where the defense asked "where is the evidence?"

Because if it's tossed, how does the court know it existed, and in the value claimed?

Because his parents openly admitted to destroying it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no "but on the other hand."

They should not have destroyed his property.

Correct, I agree with you there. But what would he have done without their help? Apparently he was in a bad situation to move back with his parents. They helped him out for nearly a year, and he sues them in return.

We don't know what happened behind closed doors either. Maybe he never had a porn collection and started one while he was living there. The parents got pissed that he was taking advantage of them, and instead of using his money to support himself, he was using them and buying porn with his money. When they discovered it, they got so pissed off and that's why they threw it out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure, they admitted to getting rid of it, but how does the plaintiff prove what "it" was?

He's claiming what, 27, 29 thousand bucks value? That kind of claim needs some justification.

According to the OP, there was no settlement amount. It almost sounds like he went to court to see if his lawsuit had merit or something.

 

[airplanemechanic]

There is no "but on the other hand."

They should not have destroyed his property.

Correct, I agree with you there. But what would he have done without their help? Apparently he was in a bad situation to move back with his parents. They helped him out for nearly a year, and he sues them in return.

We don't know what happened behind closed doors either. Maybe he never had a porn collection and started one while he was living there. The parents got pissed that he was taking advantage of them, and instead of using his money to support himself, he was using them and buying porn with his money. When they discovered it, they got so pissed off and that's why they threw it out.

Yet again, there is no "but what would he have done without their help?"

Irrelevant, they had no right to destroy his property.

/thread

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I insure my own porn collection with Lloyds of London, myself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yet again, there is no "but what would he have done without their help?"

Irrelevant, they had no right to destroy his property.

Again, we don't know what went on behind closed doors. The story was rather short. So what would you say if they asked and demand that he remove it from their home on several occasions, and he refused? Then I would say they had the right to throw it away.

 

[Pogo]

A man who sued his parents for getting rid of his pornography collection has won a lawsuit in western Michigan and can seek compensation. The US district judge Paul Maloney ruled in favour of David Werking, who said his parents had no right to throw out his collection. He lived at their Grand Haven home for 10 months after a divorce before moving to Muncie, Indiana.

Werking said boxes of films and magazines worth an estimated $29,000 (£21,500) were missing. “There is no question that the destroyed property was David’s property,” Maloney said. “Defendants repeatedly admitted that they destroyed the property.”

Werking’s parents said they had a right to act as his landlords. “Defendants do not cite to any statute or case law to support their assertion that landlords can destroy property that they dislike,” the judge said.

Son wins US lawsuit after parents destroy his porn collection

David Werking can seek damages after parents got rid of films and magazines worth $29,000

www.theguardian.com

While I admit the parents should have never thrown away this guys property, isn't he being a little ungrateful for them taking him in for nearly a year during a time of need, and then suing them in court? While the parents could have told him to find a different place for his porn, he should know his parents well enough to anticipate their rejection of his hobby. What I don't understand is a porn collection. 30 years ago? Yeah, perhaps, but who collects porn these days when we all have access to the internet and can watch or see just about anything we want?

I'd like to have seen the trial where the defense asked "where is the evidence?"

Because if it's tossed, how does the court know it existed, and in the value claimed?

Because his parents openly admitted to destroying it.

Ah. So the OP twisted the story in his thread title. Although to be fair the article isn't clear, twice claiming "destroyed" and twice claiming "got rid of" or "threw out". It's an important distinction, since you can do one without doing the other. Or you could do both.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no "but on the other hand."

They should not have destroyed his property.

Correct, I agree with you there. But what would he have done without their help? Apparently he was in a bad situation to move back with his parents. They helped him out for nearly a year, and he sues them in return.

We don't know what happened behind closed doors either. Maybe he never had a porn collection and started one while he was living there. The parents got pissed that he was taking advantage of them, and instead of using his money to support himself, he was using them and buying porn with his money. When they discovered it, they got so pissed off and that's why they threw it out.

But they still should not have thrown it out.
They should have at least had a professional appraise it.
Old porn magazine often go for $1 each as rummage sales.
If this was vintage or videos, it could have been easy to sell.
They could have started charging him rent, sued him for back rent, or lots of constructive things.
Throwing out things of value make no sense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But they still should not have thrown it out.
They should have at least had a professional appraise it.
Old porn magazine often go for $1 each as rummage sales.
If this was vintage or videos, it could have been easy to sell.
They could have started charging him rent, sued him for back rent, or lots of constructive things.
Throwing out things of value make no sense.

I think it's a case of when you're living in my house, you live by my rules. Now if they told him to remove that filth from their home repeatedly, and he was defiant, I would say that warrants throwing it out. We don't want your porn in our house, and you don't call the shots. It's our house, and we call the shots.

 

[Pogo]

Yet again, there is no "but what would he have done without their help?"

Irrelevant, they had no right to destroy his property.

Again, we don't know what went on behind closed doors. The story was rather short. So what would you say if they asked and demand that he remove it from their home on several occasions, and he refused? Then I would say they had the right to throw it away.

The story is WAY short on details. For instance it's not clear whether they were the son's "landlords" at the same time they disposed of the porn box, or if it had been left there for years after he moved out. If it's the latter, it's clearly taking up space they're not being paid for.

 

[Pogo]

But they still should not have thrown it out.
They should have at least had a professional appraise it.
Old porn magazine often go for $1 each as rummage sales.
If this was vintage or videos, it could have been easy to sell.
They could have started charging him rent, sued him for back rent, or lots of constructive things.
Throwing out things of value make no sense.

I think it's a case of when you're living in my house, you live by my rules. Now if they told him to remove that filth from their home repeatedly, and he was defiant, I would say that warrants throwing it out. We don't want your porn in our house, and you don't call the shots. It's our house, and we call the shots.

Actually there isn't even an indication of how they felt about the porn. Maybe the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and they ALL have yuge boxes of porn, the issue being whose is taking how much space.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The story is WAY short on details. For instance it's not clear whether they were the son's "landlords" at the same time they disposed of the porn box, or if it had been left there for years after he moved out. If it's the latter, it's clearly taking up space they're not being paid for.

It seems like they were trying to be lawyers, and not slick ones at that making the landlord claim. I'm just throwing out potential scenarios that would have led the parents to their actions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually there isn't even an indication of how they felt about the porn. Maybe the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and they ALL have yuge boxes of porn, the issue being whose is taking how much space.

It doesn't sound that way to me. Some people are very fragile when it comes to stuff like porn. They may have been religious, who knows?

 

[Pogo]

Actually there isn't even an indication of how they felt about the porn. Maybe the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and they ALL have yuge boxes of porn, the issue being whose is taking how much space.

It doesn't sound that way to me. Some people are very fragile when it comes to stuff like porn. They may have been religious, who knows?

Who knows indeed. I prefer to not assume facts that are not in evidence.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yet again, there is no "but what would he have done without their help?"

Irrelevant, they had no right to destroy his property.

Again, we don't know what went on behind closed doors. The story was rather short. So what would you say if they asked and demand that he remove it from their home on several occasions, and he refused? Then I would say they had the right to throw it away.

The story is WAY short on details. For instance it's not clear whether they were the son's "landlords" at the same time they disposed of the porn box, or if it had been left there for years after he moved out. If it's the latter, it's clearly taking up space they're not being paid for.

They said that they were his landlords. That hurt their case, as no landlord has the right to destroy others property.

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Like I said before many times, doesn't matter that he didn't pay rent. Doesn't matter that they were helping him out by giving him a place to stay. Doesn't matter that he was unemployed. Doesn't matter doesn't matter doesn't matter. THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DESTROY HIS PROPERTY.

That is where it starts and that is WHERE IT ENDS.

 

[JoeB131]

Watching too many television movies again, eh Joe. Governments got better things to do then try to slip illegal evidence into somebody's computer while he's watching porn. Anybody worried about viruses buys an Apple. I've owned Apple computers for over 20 years and never been hit with any virus once.

Okay, you keep telling yourself that....

I met a guy who spent six years in prison because the government stung him on a internet porn charge.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, you keep telling yourself that....

I met a guy who spent six years in prison because the government stung him on a internet porn charge.

If he was doing something illegal, that's what happens to you. You "met" a guy, and like all criminals, he was innocent too, huh.

 

[Rigby5]

But they still should not have thrown it out.
They should have at least had a professional appraise it.
Old porn magazine often go for $1 each as rummage sales.
If this was vintage or videos, it could have been easy to sell.
They could have started charging him rent, sued him for back rent, or lots of constructive things.
Throwing out things of value make no sense.

I think it's a case of when you're living in my house, you live by my rules. Now if they told him to remove that filth from their home repeatedly, and he was defiant, I would say that warrants throwing it out. We don't want your porn in our house, and you don't call the shots. It's our house, and we call the shots.

No, the parents only get the authority of a land lord, and can't dictate to an adult child.
The have the right to evict the son, but not to destroy his property.
They can demand it leave the house or he be evicted.
But destroying it was just stupid.
If it had any value, it could have been sold.
Destroying is went way beyond getting it out of the house.

 

[Pogo]

Yet again, there is no "but what would he have done without their help?"

Irrelevant, they had no right to destroy his property.

Again, we don't know what went on behind closed doors. The story was rather short. So what would you say if they asked and demand that he remove it from their home on several occasions, and he refused? Then I would say they had the right to throw it away.

The story is WAY short on details. For instance it's not clear whether they were the son's "landlords" at the same time they disposed of the porn box, or if it had been left there for years after he moved out. If it's the latter, it's clearly taking up space they're not being paid for.

They said that they were his landlords. That hurt their case, as no landlord has the right to destroy others property.

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Like I said before many times, doesn't matter that he didn't pay rent. Doesn't matter that they were helping him out by giving him a place to stay. Doesn't matter that he was unemployed. Doesn't matter doesn't matter doesn't matter. THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DESTROY HIS PROPERTY.

That is where it starts and that is WHERE IT ENDS.

Not that simple. Once AGAIN the supplied article does not make the timeline clear. That is, was he living there concurrently with their disposing of the pornbox? If yes, that would make then landlords and your point valid. But if the box was left there years before ---- as is indicated by the simple fact of its being in the antiquated form it was ---- then it looks like abandoned property.

Indications are that he left this box there years, maybe decades ago, and then more recently decided he wanted to wax nostalgic while waxing his carrot, only to find upon visiting his parents' house that they had got rid of it, probably eons ago. Which would be entirely reasonable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the parents only get the authority of a land lord, and can't dictate to an adult child.
The have the right to evict the son, but not to destroy his property.
They can demand it leave the house or he be evicted.
But destroying it was just stupid.
If it had any value, it could have been sold.
Destroying is went way beyond getting it out of the house.

Not really. Look, either you get this stuff out of my house or I will get it out of my house. Maybe that was the case and he refused to do it, so they did it for him. Again, the OP didn't go into detail and we don't know the circumstance of the situation. The way it's written, it only states they threw his porn out. Now if they didn't tell him to get rid of it first, I would side more with him. If they did tell him and he ignored them, then I side with the parents.

Once a person is living in a residence, you need to have them legally evicted to get rid of them, even if it's the parents. That means you have to hang warnings of eviction on their door. You have to pay a court fee, attend hearing, make your case, and then the judge sets a date for you to leave. If you don't leave by that date, the plaintiff has to summon the court bailiff to have you forcibly removed, and you are required to change the locks on all doors. I know this because I did it before to one of my tenants years ago.

But let me ask: if you feel the parents had no say-so on what is allowed in their house, do you believe he had the right to smoke pot if he wanted, have parties with his friends, have a girlfriend sleep over?