Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A typical 'both parties at fault' situation that could easily have ben avoided with a little common sense being applied. He had no business bringing something into his parents home that he knew they disapproved of, and they had no right to destroy his property.
You can bet there are other 'issues' at play here, and this guy's first mistake was moving back home at all. But if he had no other choice, then rent a small storage shed, or borrow space from a friend for his porn.
If I was on the jury, I'd be tempted to find for the plaintiff and award damages in the amount of $1.00 .
But they didn't destroy his property until after he moved out. According to him, they knew it was there the whole 10 months he lived there, and for whatever reason or reasons they allowed it to continue. It wasn't until he was out of the house out that they destroyed it, and according to the father's e-mail, they went to considerable lengths make sure they got every last bit of it. It seems pretty clear that their actions had nothing to do with not wanting the stuff on their property; it was just about being dicks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Not sure Id call porn collectible or valuable!
Im a guy but Ive never understood why so many guys love porn like this, back in younger days, I preferred the real thing... looking at a magazines was a waste of time!
You, too? I'm glad I'm not the only one. Even when I was a teenager, I was literally the kid who really did read Playboy just for the articles. And the interviews; the interviews were fantastic. Well, yeah, when I was about 12 or 13, my dad's Playboy collection was the best thing in the history of the world, but by the time I was 16 or 17 I was so over it. Just never got it... OK, yeah, I've seen pictures of that before, so what?
But as far as the value of his collection is concerned, the fact is it did have value. He paid money for it, it would have had value to others if he had sold it, so it was valuable. Whether it was $29,000 valuable seems questionable, but I guess that's for a jury to determine. Cripes, I'd pay hundreds of dollars just for a copy of that Playboy with John Lennon's last interview. My dad saved that copy for me, and I somehow lost it. Still kills me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat
I think what Dad was trying to say with his comment about emotional and mental health is that the son's marriage failed because he preferred his cherished porn and sex toys to a live woman.
And since Sonny felt the "need" to move all that crap into his parent's house despite being told not to, it looks like Dad might have been right.
Maybe, but it wasn't dad's decision to make. It was none of his business. The kid's a grown man, and if that stuff really was ruining his life, it's his life to ruin. The parents were definitely in the wrong here.
If I were sitting on that jury, and he is able to give a convincing account of what he owned and the value, I'd certainly consider awarding that amount to him.
This is no different, IMHO, from a person who rounds up their ex's property in their home and sets fire to it in the front yard.
Maybe he could hire an appraiser who would need to determine the depreciated value of his items. It'd be interesting to see how they'd write up an appraisal report on this.
back in younger days, I preferred the real thing... looking at a magazines was a waste of time!
Hmm, I’d wager most men with a brain prefer real sex to porn.
But guess what? Not every man can get real sex when they want with who they want, so yup, they have to watch porn. Hence the popularity of it.
Back to the OP, I’m sure the porn had sentimental value but porn and sex toys are not worth whatever the victim is claiming. It’s disgusting to think he thought it was ok to bring boxes of it into his parents home, no wonder his wife divorced him.
But they didn't destroy his property until after he moved out. According to him, they knew it was there the whole 10 months he lived there, and for whatever reason or reasons they allowed it to continue. It wasn't until he was out of the house out that they destroyed it, and according to the father's e-mail, they went to considerable lengths make sure they got every last bit of it. It seems pretty clear that their actions had nothing to do with not wanting the stuff on their property; it was just about being dicks.
You, too? I'm glad I'm not the only one. Even when I was a teenager, I was literally the kid who really did read Playboy just for the articles. And the interviews; the interviews were fantastic. Well, yeah, when I was about 12 or 13, my dad's Playboy collection was the best thing in the history of the world, but by the time I was 16 or 17 I was so over it. Just never got it... OK, yeah, I've seen pictures of that before, so what?
But as far as the value of his collection is concerned, the fact is it did have value. He paid money for it, it would have had value to others if he had sold it, so it was valuable. Whether it was $29,000 valuable seems questionable, but I guess that's for a jury to determine. Cripes, I'd pay hundreds of dollars just for a copy of that Playboy with John Lennon's last interview. My dad saved that copy for me, and I somehow lost it. Still kills me.
Maybe, but it wasn't dad's decision to make. It was none of his business. The kid's a grown man, and if that stuff really was ruining his life, it's his life to ruin. The parents were definitely in the wrong here.
When he left it there, he made it their decision.
They put up with him for 10 months, then they’re supposed to meekly deliver his stuff after he leaves it behind? Yeahhhhh, no.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat
When he left it there, he made it their decision.
They put up with him for 10 months, then they’re supposed to meekly deliver his stuff after he leaves it behind? Yeahhhhh, no.
I'm not sure you're right.
Civil law requires people take "reasonable care" of other's property. If your friend leaves something at your house accidentally, say, a cell phone, it isn't yours to destroy, fluffy. It's still your friend's property until you've made a reasonable effort to make it available to them to retrieve.
It certainly seems they weren't required to mail this to him - but to destroy his property against his will and without informing him is a different thing.
Especially if it turns out this property really rose to the level of felony property destruction.
This isn't the same as pouring a 40 dollar bottle of gin down the sink when you have a family member who is an alcoholic. This is MUCH more property.
Man, I did sure love that business law class with the civil law component. ;D
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by 49erfan916
smh. The parents should counter sue because this child is stupid....
He's not a child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
