Parents must pay $30,441 for getting rid of son's porn cache (divorce, fertility)

[usayit]

A landlord doesn't have the right to enter into a tenant's possessions and throw out anything they find objectionable that wasn't agreed upon in the lease agreement.

I think the judge ruled correctly. Just because it is pornographic material doesn't make it any less of a possession of an adult.

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

The headline is designed to outrage people, by invoking porn and not specifying that the son in question was an adult. Predictably, people are lining up to be outraged.

The reality is that individuals do not have the right to take the property of others, except under certain specific conditions defined under the law. In this case, those conditions did not exist. So lazy readers will not go beyond the headline and assume that the son was a minor, and those who think porn is necessarily bad will assume that the way the judicial system operates is to whimsically decide whether or not something is 'good', as opposed to applying relevant statutes.

If the headline had read Couple must pay $30,441 for getting rid of roommate's stamp collection then this would be seen as the nothingburger that it is, because parents/son/porn do not materially change this case one iota from that hypothetical.

This I agree with.

[djsuperfly]

Originally Posted by usayit

A landlord doesn't have the right to enter into a tenant's possessions and throw out anything they find objectionable that wasn't agreed upon in the lease agreement.

I think the judge ruled correctly. Just because it is pornographic material doesn't make it any less of a possession of an adult.

Your analogy isn't completely apples to apples, though. The parents didn't walk into son's room while he was living there and throw out his porn stash. It was left behind. Yes, the LL in your analogy would have to store the stuff and go through the process to try to get items back to former tenant.

I guess my only question is: Should we really be expecting parents who are letting adult-aged children move back in to understand that they are setting up a landlord/tenant relationship?

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by djsuperfly

Your analogy isn't completely apples to apples, though. The parents didn't walk into son's room while he was living there and throw out his porn stash. It was left behind. Yes, the LL in your analogy would have to store the stuff and go through the process to try to get items back to former tenant.

I guess my only question is: Should we really be expecting parents who are letting adult-aged children move back in to understand that they are setting up a landlord/tenant relationship?

Some people apparently don't read very well.


*All* of the son's possessions were boxed up, ready to be sent to him, not just the 'porn'. The arrangements for him to receive his possessions had already been made. The [rest of the] possessions were sent to the son, except that the parents specifically chose to exclude the possessions that they felt he shouldn't have. The parents removed those items from the totality of the items and destroyed them, it was a deliberate choice based on what they felt the son should or shouldn't have.


None of the property was 'abandoned'. If the son had simply moved out, leaving no forwarding address, and the parents had held the stuff for a year before giving up and chucking it it would be a different story. The parents simply picked a portion of his personal property that they didn't like, separated it from the rest and destroyed said portion of personal property.


And yes, parents who let an adult child move in should understand the ramifications. I know *my* father did when I hit a rough patch and needed to crash there for a while, he even insisted I pay rent...which I expected and was happy to do so.

[tamajane]

All I know is I would never steal, throw away or destroy anything that did not belong to me, that shouldn't be so hard. I don't get the mentality to do that and then defend it - it is legally and morally wrong.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by tamajane

All I know is I would never steal, throw away or destroy anything that did not belong to me, that shouldn't be so hard. I don't get the mentality to do that and then defend it - it is legally and morally wrong.

Morally (not legally) do you think a 40 something man had a right to sue his parents on this issue after staying with them for 10 months?

I mean if the parents threw away some valuable ancient archeological fertility symbols that they objected to because of their Baptist religion, I could see that lawsuit might be morally justified.

But, hired experts aside, you can download a new porn collection without a lot of difficulty.

[Veritas Vincit]

The parents were trying to fix the dude's life. Lawsuit proves it was already way too late for that.

[djsuperfly]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Some people apparently don't read very well.


*All* of the son's possessions were boxed up, ready to be sent to him, not just the 'porn'. The arrangements for him to receive his possessions had already been made. The [rest of the] possessions were sent to the son, except that the parents specifically chose to exclude the possessions that they felt he shouldn't have. The parents removed those items from the totality of the items and destroyed them, it was a deliberate choice based on what they felt the son should or shouldn't have.


None of the property was 'abandoned'. If the son had simply moved out, leaving no forwarding address, and the parents had held the stuff for a year before giving up and chucking it it would be a different story. The parents simply picked a portion of his personal property that they didn't like, separated it from the rest and destroyed said portion of personal property.


And yes, parents who let an adult child move in should understand the ramifications. I know *my* father did when I hit a rough patch and needed to crash there for a while, he even insisted I pay rent...which I expected and was happy to do so.

And some people feel the need to be rude and snarky just to be rude and snarky. No, sorry, I don't click on every link that everybody puts in a thread. And nowhere did I say the property was "abandoned," just that it was "left behind."

And I'm not saying the parents were "right." I have an adult-aged kid. I wouldn't do it. I'd probably talk to him about the fact that he might have a porn addiction. That that porn addiction might have gone a long way to contributing to his divorce. That if he hadn't blown so much money on porn he might not have had to move back home, divorce or no.

I was simply raising the philosophical question of whether in a legal framework that having your adult-aged kid move back in with you should be treated like a standard landlord/tenant relationship.

[tamajane]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

Morally (not legally) do you think a 40 something man had a right to sue his parents on this issue after staying with them for 10 months?

I mean if the parents threw away some valuable ancient archeological fertility symbols that they objected to because of their Baptist religion, I could see that lawsuit might be morally justified.

But, hired experts aside, you can download a new porn collection without a lot of difficulty.

I think this was vintage porn, could have been mid century rare stuff that is irreplaceable. 30K appraisal so it isn't something you can just download. He's an adult, but it's no worse than anime or comic book collecting.

It is never justified to destroy another's property, unless in life threatening situation like a weapon being held on you. It just isn't, and two judges agreed in this case.

I know people who enjoy doing this, they are narcissists who feel entitled to do what they want with people and others' property.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by tamajane

... but it's no worse than anime or comic book collecting.

It is never justified to destroy another's property, unless in life threatening situation like a weapon being held on you

My parents destroyed my comic book collection (on moral grounds) that I collected over 50 years ago. It was straight comics, not porn. It may have been worth something.

I am not arguing about right or wrong on the parents part, I am just saying you don't take your parents to court over a personal property claim. If you are going to take your parents to court, it had better involve serious bodily harm or egregious misuse of your money.

Jackie Coogan (Uncle Fester) was born on October 26, 1914. As a child star, Coogan earned an estimated $3 to $4 million ($44 to $59 million in 2021 dollars). But in May 1935, a few months before his 21st birthday, he was the sole survivor of a car crash in which his father died. When he turned 21 in October 1935, his fortune was believed to be well intact as it was carefully managed by his father. His mother married Arthur Bernstein, the family's financial advisor the next year.

Jackie married Betty Grable in 1937 at the age of 22 (she was age 20). After he was married, Coogan found that the entire amount except $250,000 had been spent by his mother and stepfather, Arthur Bernstein, on fur coats, diamonds and other jewelry, and expensive cars. Coogan's mother insisted, "No promises were ever made to give Jackie anything",

The legal battle focused attention on child actors and resulted in the 1939 enactment of the California Child Actor's Bill, often referred to as the "Coogan Act". It required that a child actor's employer set aside 15% of the earnings in a trust (called a Coogan account), and specified the actor's schooling, work hours, and time off.

Jackie Coogan first appeared as "Uncle Fester" just before his 50th birthday.

[UNC4Me]

Originally Posted by djsuperfly

Your analogy isn't completely apples to apples, though. The parents didn't walk into son's room while he was living there and throw out his porn stash. It was left behind. Yes, the LL in your analogy would have to store the stuff and go through the process to try to get items back to former tenant.

I guess my only question is: Should we really be expecting parents who are letting adult-aged children move back in to understand that they are setting up a landlord/tenant relationship?

If they were, how much rent was the son paying? What was his share of the utilities, insurance, food etc? How long was his signed lease for?

They definitely should be held responsible for destroying his property, but without the above agreement a landlord-tenant relationship it was not. It was just a person staying with their parents by mutual agreement.