If he were just suing his landlord over throwing out his porn, or his parents for throwing out something innocuous, it wouldn’t have attracted so much attention. It’s the combination that it’s his parents and it’s over porn that makes it so bizarre.
It shouldn’t be considered from any perspective. It’s a legal and moral obligation that gives you no right to commit tortious acts.
Funnily, I somehow misread it as “pot stash” before it got changed. So when I finally got around to actually reading the thread I was confused as to why it needed to be changed, since throwing out his pot makes just as much sense as throwing out his porn.
Who moves and doesn’t take their porn on the first trip? Especially when you’re leaving it behind at your parent’s house! He has $25,000 to spend on porn, but he doesn’t have $25 to rent a storage unit?
From the article:
The parents had called police on Aug. 23, 2017, over an “incident” and asked that their son leave for at least three days. The son repeatedly contacted his parents and tried to retrieve his property from their home, the judge said.
The parents said they had told their son when he moved in that he could not bring pornography into their home or it would be destroyed. They also contended he had abandoned the property and said he could have mitigated his losses by removing it himself.
The judge said the parents would not allow him back and that they said they would ship his property to him.
The parents had kept some materials, described as the “worst of the worst,” in a safety-deposit box, concerned it could be illegal.
I’m just amazed he kept so much stuff as hard copies. Who does that in the digital age? I assume the movies must be in the form of videotapes. I can only think the magazines and tapes must be of sentimental value. They must be ancient.
He didn’t move. He got kicked out over an unstated “incident.” (Apparently not one that was important enough to weigh in on the case.) He tried to go back and get his stuff, but his parents wouldn’t let him, eventually sending it to him–minus his porn collection, which they destroyed.
He had moved in with them after a divorce–suggesting that, at that point in his life, he was low on funds. His parents did tell him at that point that porn would not be allowed in the house, and that they would destroy it if they found it. But, as the case says, that only would entitle them to kick him out, not to destroy his property.
While I agree that a lawsuit to resolve a dispute with your parents is not the best, I fully see why he would sue in this case. It’s not like they destroyed a few rare things worth a lot—it was just a rather large collection. The amount of effort to destroy that much, on purpose? The closest I can imagine is someone totaling my car, on purpose. And that’s like 1/5th of what they did.
I do not see how raising someone entitles you to destroy their property. And that’s even assuming that the parents are good people—not all of them are.
But even so, unless she explicitly (or implicitly) banned him from keeping porn in the house, she’d have no grounds for disposing of it or evicting him over it.
I haven’t read the article, but I’m guessing this is one of those cases where the mom didn’t understand that her adult child living in the house set up a landlord/tenant relationship that can hold up in court. So mom just doesn’t want her son watching porn and tosses it. Just like she would if he was 14 and she found it all. Son, on the other hand, realizes this is no different than an apartment manager stopping in for maintenance and disposing off anything that he deems unethical (like porn).
If that had some type of an agreement, even if it was verbal, where she stated that any porn found on her property would be disposed of, it would be different, but I’m assuming it’s not the case.
@Joey_P from the article:
So they told him not to. I’m guessing they knew about his collection in advance & didn’t wanna deal with it.
I made the crack about the ex-wife in my O.P. because I wondered if “amassed enormous & valuable collection of pornography” figured into the divorce proceedings at all.
This. It’s always a little weird when parents and children get involved in each other’s sexuality. So this is a weird story.
I, at first, assumed one of the parties violated the unwritten ‘I’ll keep it hidden’/‘I won’t go looking for it’ rule, but since he left and asked them to ship his stuff to him, I’m not sure. I can only assume it was kept in some type of a locked container that he didn’t think they’d open. But unless he left in some kind of a hurry, you’d think that be one of the things he would have taken with him, just to make sure they didn’t find it. I have a hard time believing he didn’t have a decent idea as to what their reaction would be upon finding it.
I’m also guessing, and this is absolutely 100% a guess, that he didn’t have a great relationship with his parents. They may have felt they were ‘doing him a favor’ by getting rid of it, but he likely knows that he’s cut off all ties with them when he sued them. Taking your parents to court is a whole level beyond just yelling at them and stomping off.
I’m genuinely curious. Why do you continue to make assumptions and guesses rather than reading the linked article, or even the rest of this thread?
As it happens, he did “leave in some kind of hurry”. He was kicked out in an apparently unrelated incident that involved the police. He repeatedly contacted them to try to retrieve his stuff, but they refused, and eventually shipped his belongings to him, minus the porno stash, which they destroyed instead. All of this is laid out in the article and in comments in this thread.
And he absolutely knew exactly what would happen if his parents found his stash - they explicitly told him not to bring any pornography when he moved back in, and that they’d destroy any if they found it. Again, this is clearly laid out in the article and in comments in this thread.
Hard to care too much for either party here. But I think my sympathies lean towards the Ps.
In retrospect, I assume the Ps regret allowing the guy to move in after his divorce.
When he moves in, he brings his porn, despite being told not to. How big is this stash? How many boxes of what size? More than a carload? He has no other friends/options?
Then, he acts in some unspecified way that requires police eviction.
And when evicted, he fails to take his stuff with him, or make arrangements to get his stuff. I assume just about anyone who is evicted is allowed to at least come back the next day to remove their stuff - possibly under police supervision.
Instead, the guy moves out of state, and expects the Ps to ship his shit to him.
Sounds like a fucked up family, just fucked up in a different way from all the other fucked up families.
If it was in the form of VHS tapes and magazines, then $29,000 represents thousands of items. It would take up the volume of maybe a sofa.
From the linked article:
Also referenced upthread by BigT:
Yeah - I read what the article said. But I’m always leery about accepting as fact what was alleged in a legal proceeding, what the court held, or what subsequent news reports describe.
How hard did he try to get his crap? Why didn’t he take it with him?
I suspect all involved are pieces of work, and really don’t care much.
The very short, easy-to-read article says there were a dozen boxes of magazines and movies, with many irreplaceable items.
You can’t access that link if using an ad blocker. Here’s another link to a site that isn’t blocked.
Strange, I have an ad blocker and have had no trouble accessing it several times. Thanks for your link.
Ok…I mean judges are fallible human beings, the court system is far from perfect, and I’m going to make an assumption that this case didn’t involve a thorough investigation by a crack team of professionals, but against a finding of fact by a court of law, you have…your assumptions of what you think should have happened?
I don’t know, but since the precipitating incident involved the police, my assumption is that he thought better of trying to physically force his way in. Again, the court found that he repeatedly contacted his parents and attempted to retrieve his stuff. If the parents refuse him access, I don’t know what else he legally can do. Take them to court, maybe?
See above, the bit about the police being involved in evicting him. At that point, and again, this is my assumption, he didn’t really have the option of packing and removing a dozen boxes of magazines and movies.
If they’re all pieces of work, why do you assume that it’s the son that’s committing perjury?
I’m with you there. I don’t find the story nearly as interesting as some of the responses in this thread.