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

[harmonica]

....he has mental problems -obviously ..surprised he didn't kill his parents

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe when his wife found it, she didn't want to get sued by throwing it away, so she divorced him instead.

Wouldn't half of it belong to her as community property?
Maybe in the divorce split, she got the car, and he got the porn.

Yes, but she probably wanted the car.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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 “Defendants do not cite to any statute or case law to support their assertion that landlords can destroy property that they dislike,” the judge said.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?

Once they allowed it into their home it became their problem in their eyes, but did not become their property to dispose of as the saw fit. Should have insisted he rent storage space off their property. Probably should have raised him better, also. Live and learn.

Their houses they could say they don’t want it in their house and make him remove it.

If they discard it, they are financially liable

They probably thought they did a better job raising him and not expecting a lawsuit to come their way if they threw the crap out.

 

[meaner gene]

Actually there's more to it. Since this was akin to a landlord-tenant situation, imagine if a landlord told his tenant he didn't want them to have firearms on his property.

I don't know about other places, but here it's against the law for a landlord to do that.

I would think that the 2nd amendment wouldn't cover it as an absolute right. It's no different than zoning laws that restrict where dangerous actions can occur.

Since it's controlled by the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, you have to wonder why landlords can ban tobacco, but not alcohol or firearms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was a conservative who posted it, objecting to the application of the law. A liberal would have just found it an interesting article.

Several points not specifically mentioned is his right to privacy. The contents of boxes or steamer trunks full of his property were no longer open to inspection by his parents. Just as a landlord can't go looking through the property of his tenants. So this is more akin to a landlord-tenant situation, than a parent-child.

I just don't think this is a legal matter. The judge should have told him this was a domestic issue the court doesn't get involved in.

 

[meaner gene]

Things might get better if less women had kids. Less. Alot less abortions, more higher paying job vacancies. Would the nation grow stronger? Quite a question.

Did you ever see the movie Idiocracy - Wikipedia

American soldier who takes part in a classified hibernation experiment, only to be accidentally frozen for too long and awaken 500 years later

Over the next five centuries, societal expectations lead the most intelligent humans to choose not to have children while the least intelligent reproduce indiscriminately, creating increasingly dumber generations.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"who collects porn these days when we all have access to the internet and can watch or see just about anything we want?" Hey, reel-to-reel old school porn is worth a ton of money. Even old VHS porn tapes.

"Werking’s parents said they had a right to act as his landlords." No they didn't. Even if he was paying rent and his parents were his landlords, you can't destroy someones property. Just ask Judge Judy.

Reminds me of when I turned 18. My parents told me I was an adult now. If you want to live here, you have to live by our rules. There went my pot party in the basement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The parents claimed to have been acting as land lords. A landlord doesn't have the right to destroy tenant's property.

They took the wrong legal stance on that one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Please tell me this is supposed to be a joke.

Why did the freak have $30,000 worth of porn anyway? And what would make him think it's ok to take it to his mom's house? And then suing your own parents? Who took you in when you were in need and tried to help you break your porn addiction?

Maybe if he had that 30K in cash instead of blowing it on porn, he could have moved to his own apartment with that money.

 

[meaner gene]

One has to question the valuation of the property. I presume it was based on original purchase price without depreciation, since it could be considered irreplaceable.

I'm thinking what if instead of porn, it was someone's prized collection of commodore 64 hardware and software.

Anything of value should be insured. Some of my musical instruments are irreplaceable, but I have them insured for appraisal value. However I don't know if there is such thing as porn insurance. He probably could have gotten rental insurance which is a hundred some bucks a year. Then they could have dealt with his parents.

Saying he should have had insurance, sounds like the argument to carry collision on your auto insurance policy.

 

[rightwinger]

At least they didn’t throw out his inflatable doll

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If I were the parents' attorney I think I'd argue that considering the obvious age of the material it was reasonable to consider it abandoned and as such, junk. I doubt the case could be made for it being "collectible antiques".

This also sets kind of a weird precedent for parents who can no longer say "I threw out those T-shirts you wore in the 1970s".

If I were in a desperate situation and had to move back in with my mother, there is nothing she could do to me that I would take it to court and sue her for.

 

[Mac-7]

US district judge Paul Maloney is a bush appointed swamp rat

 

[meaner gene]

I just don't think this is a legal matter. The judge should have told him this was a domestic issue the court doesn't get involved in.

Domestic issue? The court doesn't get involve in.
You mean like his divorce case?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Domestic issue? The court doesn't get involve in.
You mean like his divorce case?

Marriage is a legal contract. The only way to dissolve it is through court. This is a family dispute and should have stayed that way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Saying he should have had insurance, sounds like the argument to carry collision on your auto insurance policy.

I think he was evaluating his own collection. Probably couldn't find anybody to give him a few hundred dollars for it.

 

[meaner gene]

Marriage is a legal contract. The only way to dissolve it is through court. This is a family dispute and should have stayed that way.

Triple talaq is a form of divorce that was practiced in Islam, whereby a Muslim man could legally divorce his wife by pronouncing talaq (the Arabic word for divorce) three times. The pronouncement could be oral or written, or, in recent times, delivered by electronic means such as telephone, SMS, email or social media.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would think that the 2nd amendment wouldn't cover it as an absolute right. It's no different than zoning laws that restrict where dangerous actions can occur.

Since it's controlled by the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, you have to wonder why landlords can ban tobacco, but not alcohol or firearms.

The Constitution only applies to the interaction between government and citizen, not citizen and citizen. I can go to a Trump rally and yell Biden can such my........ But if I tell my employer the same thing with him, I'll be packing my stuff to go home.

 

[meaner gene]

I think he was evaluating his own collection. Probably couldn't find anybody to give him a few hundred dollars for it.

Actually in such a tort, where the articles are no longer available for independent valuation, using purchase price is acceptable.

 

[meaner gene]

The Constitution only applies to the interaction between government and citizen, not citizen and citizen.

Yet you just posted the opposite.

imagine if a landlord told his tenant he didn't want them to have firearms on his property.

I don't know about other places, but here it's against the law for a landlord to do that.

You need to explain how government has the right to make such a law. Telling people what they have to accept on their own property.