Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wouldn't half of it belong to her as community property?Maybe when his wife found it, she didn't want to get sued by throwing it away, so she divorced him instead.
Maybe in the divorce split, she got the car, and he got the porn.
Their houses they could say they don’t want it in their house and make him remove it.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.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 “Defendants do not cite to any statute or case law to support their assertion that landlords can destroy property that they dislike,” the judge said.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 $29,000www.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?
If they discard it, they are financially liable
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 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.I don't know about other places, but here it's against the law for a landlord to do that.
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.
Did you ever see the movie Idiocracy - WikipediaThings 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.
"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.
The parents claimed to have been acting as land lords. A landlord doesn't have the right to destroy tenant's property.
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?
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.
Saying he should have had insurance, sounds like the argument to carry collision on your auto insurance policy.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.
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".
Domestic issue? The court doesn't get involve in.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?
Saying he should have had insurance, sounds like the argument to carry collision on your auto insurance policy.
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.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.
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.
Actually in such a tort, where the articles are no longer available for independent valuation, using purchase price is acceptable.I think he was evaluating his own collection. Probably couldn't find anybody to give him a few hundred dollars for it.
The Constitution only applies to the interaction between government and citizen, not citizen and citizen.
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.