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

[JoeB131]

If you hire a lawyer, sure it can cost you a lot of money, but not for personally filing a case yourself and paying whatever fees are involved.

Yeah, go in front of a judge without a lawyer when you already lost in lower court. That'll work out well.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

see. silver lining. your legal system works. there is hope for you incel trumptards.

And it only took 10 posts for some deranged retard to make this about trump.
Give you a little bit and I’m sure somehow you’ll be accusing someone in this story of racism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, go in front of a judge without a lawyer when you already lost in lower court. That'll work out well.

It's clear the first judge is wrong here. He's probably another creep that collects porn as well. Unless there is a law stating people have a right to store stuff in your home even if they are not living there, then anything in your home or on your property is yours to do as you wish.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From my understanding, an appeal can only be filed by a lawyer, and lawyers who understand appeals procedures are usually very expensive.
You think we have legal rights in this country?
You are mistaken. You only have the legal rights you can afford.

To some point I would agree. But I never heard of a law that only lawyers can file for an appeal. American citizens have the right to a fair trial and justice with or without a lawyer.

Appeals can in theory be filed by anyone, but they have to be very specific and done according to very exact legal standards. When you file an appeal, you are not allowed to state your opinion or call witnesses.
You have to state exactly which statutes were violated.
That is nearly impossible for anyone but a specialized lawyer.
And the previous ruling did not violate any statutes.
They guy still had a key to access his property and was never told of any sort of ultimatum.
So then it was criminal to throw it way, not just civil liability.

Having a key has nothing to do with it, and I didn't read or hear that he did have a key. He left his parents home and wasn't paying them money to store his stuff. They told him to remove it when he moved and he didn't. In Michigan there are no laws regarding a landlord to store leftover property at no charge. This judge ruled they were liable for throwing it out. So how long should the parents be forced to store his belongings, and where is it written in law?

 

[Rigby5]

From my understanding, an appeal can only be filed by a lawyer, and lawyers who understand appeals procedures are usually very expensive.
You think we have legal rights in this country?
You are mistaken. You only have the legal rights you can afford.

To some point I would agree. But I never heard of a law that only lawyers can file for an appeal. American citizens have the right to a fair trial and justice with or without a lawyer.

Appeals can in theory be filed by anyone, but they have to be very specific and done according to very exact legal standards. When you file an appeal, you are not allowed to state your opinion or call witnesses.
You have to state exactly which statutes were violated.
That is nearly impossible for anyone but a specialized lawyer.
And the previous ruling did not violate any statutes.
They guy still had a key to access his property and was never told of any sort of ultimatum.
So then it was criminal to throw it way, not just civil liability.

Having a key has nothing to do with it, and I didn't read or hear that he did have a key. He left his parents home and wasn't paying them money to store his stuff. They told him to remove it when he moved and he didn't. In Michigan there are no laws regarding a landlord to store leftover property at no charge. This judge ruled they were liable for throwing it out. So how long should the parents be forced to store his belongings, and where is it written in law?

The point is that if you ignore any family emotional stuff, then we are just talking about how a storage rental place would have to deal with nonpayment under the law. And the law clearly says you can't just throw stuff out. You have to put a notice on the storage door of delinquency, intent to repossess the storage area, after sufficient time get a judge ruling, and then you still have to try to sell it and give the owner the proceeds from the sale.

In MI there ARE laws regarding leftover property!
The value of the property will effect the ruling.
But you have to give notice of intent to get rid of it.
Sometimes you can just post it on the door for a month, some states require you to post it in the newspaper.
And you still have to get a judge to sign off on it if the value is above some limit.
And you then still have to attempt with due diligence to sell it and not just throw it away.
You get to keep what covers any back payment due, but then you have to return the rest to the owner if they ever show up.

You keep implying it is like cleaning up the worthless mess left behind by renters, and that is not a valid analogy.
Trash left behind by renters is of no value.
A better analogy is like when a renter become hospitalized and leaves things of value behind because they have no choice.
Then the land lord clearly can not just throw everything away.
They are required to go through legal procedures to get judicial permission at every step of the process.
And if they do liquidate, they are required to use due diligence to sell for the highest reasonable amount, which then has to be returned to the legal owner.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The point is that if you ignore any family emotional stuff, then we are just talking about how a storage rental place would have to deal with nonpayment under the law. And the law clearly says you can't just throw stuff out. You have to put a notice on the storage door of delinquency, intent to repossess the storage area, after sufficient time get a judge ruling, and then you still have to try to sell it and give the owner the proceeds from the sale.

In MI there ARE laws regarding leftover property!
The value of the property will effect the ruling.
But you have to give notice of intent to get rid of it.
Sometimes you can just post it on the door for a month, some states require you to post it in the newspaper.
And you still have to get a judge to sign off on it if the value is above some limit.
And you then still have to attempt with due diligence to sell it and not just throw it away.
You get to keep what covers any back payment due, but then you have to return the rest to the owner if they ever show up.

You keep implying it is like cleaning up the worthless mess left behind by renters, and that is not a valid analogy.
Trash left behind by renters is of no value.
A better analogy is like when a renter become hospitalized and leaves things of value behind because they have no choice.
Then the land lord clearly can not just throw everything away.
They are required to go through legal procedures to get judicial permission at every step of the process.
And if they do liquidate, they are required to use due diligence to sell for the highest reasonable amount, which then has to be returned to the legal owner.

The son was not in the hospital and the parents were not renting out a storage unit. In my state, once the rent is exhausted, anything in that rental unit is mine to do as I wish. I can throw it outside, in the garbage, donate it, give it away, and nobody can do a thing about it. Just ask my attorney. I am not obligated by law to store anything or have people leave their junk cars in my parking lot. I need the apartment clear so I can prepare it for the next renter, and I only have so many parking spaces and garages. I need that stuff out of my property in order to proceed.

When he moved, the parents demanded he take his porn collection with him, and he refused. This judge is completely wrong because in that state, just like mine, there are no laws about left over property once somebody moves out.

 

[Rigby5]

The point is that if you ignore any family emotional stuff, then we are just talking about how a storage rental place would have to deal with nonpayment under the law. And the law clearly says you can't just throw stuff out. You have to put a notice on the storage door of delinquency, intent to repossess the storage area, after sufficient time get a judge ruling, and then you still have to try to sell it and give the owner the proceeds from the sale.

In MI there ARE laws regarding leftover property!
The value of the property will effect the ruling.
But you have to give notice of intent to get rid of it.
Sometimes you can just post it on the door for a month, some states require you to post it in the newspaper.
And you still have to get a judge to sign off on it if the value is above some limit.
And you then still have to attempt with due diligence to sell it and not just throw it away.
You get to keep what covers any back payment due, but then you have to return the rest to the owner if they ever show up.

You keep implying it is like cleaning up the worthless mess left behind by renters, and that is not a valid analogy.
Trash left behind by renters is of no value.
A better analogy is like when a renter become hospitalized and leaves things of value behind because they have no choice.
Then the land lord clearly can not just throw everything away.
They are required to go through legal procedures to get judicial permission at every step of the process.
And if they do liquidate, they are required to use due diligence to sell for the highest reasonable amount, which then has to be returned to the legal owner.

The son was not in the hospital and the parents were not renting out a storage unit. In my state, once the rent is exhausted, anything in that rental unit is mine to do as I wish. I can throw it outside, in the garbage, donate it, give it away, and nobody can do a thing about it. Just ask my attorney. I am not obligated by law to store anything or have people leave their junk cars in my parking lot. I need the apartment clear so I can prepare it for the next renter, and I only have so many parking spaces and garages. I need that stuff out of my property in order to proceed.

When he moved, the parents demanded he take his porn collection with him, and he refused. This judge is completely wrong because in that state, just like mine, there are no laws about left over property once somebody moves out.

You are wrong on this.
The hospital was just an example.
Similar reasons could be him being arrested, deployed over seas, etc.
Doesn't matter what it is exactly, the person still has to be given adequate warning of their belongings being at risk.
All changes in ownership of anything have to be by mutual agreement normally, and only a judge can alter ownership of anything, unilaterally.
You ARE required by law to store items of value for a reasonable amount of time, until a judge says otherwise.
I am also a landlord, have the same desires, but have never heard of any state that ignored tenant rights, and I do not believe there is one.
Tenants can easily prevent me from evict them for as much as 6 months in most states.
The only reason they don't usually, is that then if I win in court, that would increase the amount they owe me.

When he refused to take the collection with him, it sounds to me he asked for help moving it and would have moved it if he could have. The parent also never served notice of a time frame with a deadline.
In ALL states there are laws about left over property.
You just never ran into it because your tenants only left junk they did not want.
If they left something they had paid $29k for, you can bet you would have also been sued and lost.
In no state can you junk something worth $29k, owned by someone else.

 

[JoeB131]

It's clear the first judge is wrong here. He's probably another creep that collects porn as well. Unless there is a law stating people have a right to store stuff in your home even if they are not living there, then anything in your home or on your property is yours to do as you wish.

except he was paying them rent and he still had a key... therefore they didn't have a right to destroy his property.

Just write the guy a check and then never talk to him again. It would be cheaper.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's clear the first judge is wrong here. He's probably another creep that collects porn as well. Unless there is a law stating people have a right to store stuff in your home even if they are not living there, then anything in your home or on your property is yours to do as you wish.

except he was paying them rent and he still had a key... therefore they didn't have a right to destroy his property.

Just write the guy a check and then never talk to him again. It would be cheaper.

Where is your source stating he was still paying them rent and still had a key? We have two sources in this topic that didn't make those claims. If he was still paying them rent, then you'd be correct. They threw them out long after he moved, and I seriously doubt he continued paying them rent after he vacated the premises.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are wrong on this.
The hospital was just an example.
Similar reasons could be him being arrested, deployed over seas, etc.
Doesn't matter what it is exactly, the person still has to be given adequate warning of their belongings being at risk.
All changes in ownership of anything have to be by mutual agreement normally, and only a judge can alter ownership of anything, unilaterally.
You ARE required by law to store items of value for a reasonable amount of time, until a judge says otherwise.
I am also a landlord, have the same desires, but have never heard of any state that ignored tenant rights, and I do not believe there is one.
Tenants can easily prevent me from evict them for as much as 6 months in most states.
The only reason they don't usually, is that then if I win in court, that would increase the amount they owe me.

When he refused to take the collection with him, it sounds to me he asked for help moving it and would have moved it if he could have. The parent also never served notice of a time frame with a deadline.
In ALL states there are laws about left over property.
You just never ran into it because your tenants only left junk they did not want.
If they left something they had paid $29k for, you can bet you would have also been sued and lost.
In no state can you junk something worth $29k, owned by someone else.

Sure you can. You have only so many parking spaces at your rental property. Your new tenant needs one of those spaces because there is no street parking. Does the law state you can't rent out that unit formerly rented by a tenant because the car is worth 30K? You are forced to lose money for perhaps months because your potential new teant(s) have no place to park their vehicle?

How about an apartment full of nice furniture? Nobody will rent a place with other people's belongings in it because then they'd have no place for theirs. So you are forced to keep the rental unit empty until spring when they can come back and have a moving or yard sale?

You are correct in that it depends on where you live. But no court can expect you to preserve the property of other people who used to live at your residence, especially when it means a great financial loss to you.