Good parenting or bad, this was the part that made me wonder if the guy was violent, especially since the parents wouldn’t allow him back in. Which can happen despite quality of parenting. There’s just not enough information here to draw any real conclusions. What little info is presented is obviously biased toward the complainant. But all of them sound like bad news.
That’s exactly my take. There’s at least one real loser in this crowd, and perhaps all 3. The “family dynamic” might well be dramatic and dynamic, but it’s lacking anything resembling family except maybe some common DNA.
I hope they end up on the Jerry Springer show (or current equivalent); it’ll be a hoot.
People suing their parents or children is the stuff of legal humor sites. Suing over porn makes it almost can’t miss click-bait.
Another item on the WTF bullet points list is that the parents sorted through the collection and saved “the “worst of the worst,” in a safety-deposit box, concerned it could be illegal.”
I won’t be surprised to hear that the whole family are guests on the Jerry Springer show sometime soon.
I’m guessing they didn’t list individual items in the divorce decree. When I got divorced my ex gave me a list of the big ticket items she was taking and a statement saying anything not on the list is mine. She wasn’t required to do that and to this day I don’t understand why she did. I mean, when I ran across her $1000 flute a year later, I could have legally tossed it in the garbage or sold it or kept it. By her own signed statement I owned it. Without that last line, she could have gone through the court system to try to get it back (for the record, I just handed it to her the next time I saw her).
The courts seemed much more concerned with making sure we listed every debt either or both of us had and who would be [legally] responsible for it going forward.
I miss Popehat. Popehat would have posted a review of the case with links to the legal documents.
I did run across a review posted in April 2019 on the “Lawful Masses with Leonard French” YouTube channel. The review was of the original lawsuit document, complete with copies of emails between the parties. It doesn’t give an in depth account of their relationship, but some attitude does seep through.
Of course, that’s just the original document. The parents would have submitted a countering document. And the judge would have also issued a document. I miss Popehat.
Here’s my go-to legal humor blog. It might keep you entertained for awhile. Although today’s entry is a bit out of character for him.
Or both. It’s a matter of personal opinion if either or both are morally wrong, but the parents were legally wrong.
Thanks. I’ll check that out.
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in Kalamazoo ordered Beth and Paul Werking to pay $30,441.54 to their son and $14,519.82 to his attorney. Maloney earlier granted the son’s request for summary judgment but delayed a ruling on damages.
The judge denied the son’s request for treble damages, which can be awarded under Michigan’s conversion statute.
So it didn’t come to that.
Triple damages would have been a rather stiff penalty.
Ouch.
It’s been over four years since the original incident. Presumably he’s found something else to come to.
No kidding. The thread title brought me into this thread.
Of course, The Daily Mail has a partial list of the porn (with prices), and emails between parents and son.
It’s funny that they have pictures of the parents, the judge, and the ex wife (who as far as I know had nothing to do with this) but no picture of the son.