Anonymous wrote:I would like to see what $29,000 of porn looks like.

I would like to see what $29,000 of porn looks like.

Flabbergasting that he didn't box the porn and label it BOOKS.

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree with the dad's point (although I don't think porn as a whole is bad), but the parents really had no right to destroy his property.

if he left it behind and didn’t pay a storage fee, couldn’t they say it was abandoned property? Given this guys apparent addiction, I’d say they did him a favor and I hope the court agrees. What a slime ball.

Anonymous wrote:It was illegal if minors.

assumes facts not in evidence.

It was illegal if minors.

I see a lot of room for dispute over the “value” of said property. Porno guy says old makes it valuable. Others could argue old makes it worthless.

The article also says he moved out of his parents home due to a “domestic dispute” and that he previously got caught selling porn and that his dad had previously threatened to destroy his porn if he left it around.

Sounds like the ex wife dodged a bullet. I hope he’s already disinherited because if not, I’d disinherit him now!

This is actually a landlord and tenant dispute. I doubt the son signed any actual rental agreement. It's going to depend on the landlord's responsibilities. It would technically be abandoned property.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/handling-tenants-abandoned-property-michigan.html

He might have a winnable case. The no written agreement is a big problem.

Is this about Michael Rotondo???

?

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree with the dad's point (although I don't think porn as a whole is bad), but the parents really had no right to destroy his property.

I used to be fairly neutral on porn, but I've changed my thinking in recent years. Porn itself has evolved to showing alot of real violence against women, and the ease of access with it being available (for free, as others have pointed out) 24/7 from your phone can really impact someone's ability to maintain relationships in the real world. It's not good for men or women at this point.

Seriously, look at this guy. He couldn't afford to live on his own after his divorce, but he owned $30k worth of porn. And now he's willing to destroy his relationship with his parents over it, after they took him in, stored his things, and moved them for him. Odds are strong that it was a factor in his divorce as well. I know we're snickering and arguing the merits of his case here, but for this guy, his attachment to porn is wrecking his life.

I don't disagree with the dad's point (although I don't think porn as a whole is bad), but the parents really had no right to destroy his property.

There's something more than awful about expecting your parents to move your porn for you. Is shame really such a lost concept?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he has legal grounds, but this is pathetic. No wonder he's divorced. There's an unreal amount of porn available for free.

That’s what you think is wrong in this scenario? That the guy paid for his porn?

There's a lot wrong. Spending $30K on porn when you can't afford your own place is part of it.

With so much free porn available out there.

Anonymous wrote:I watch enough Judge Judy to know the son could win this case. They destroyed his property doesn’t matter that it was salacious it was his.

Depends on state law about abandoning property.

Also, a grown man is having his parents deliver his stuff? Including his porn collection?

What an infantile idiot.