Parents sued by Their Son (42) For Throwing Out Extensive Porn Collection Worth US$25 000
Man Sues Parents For Throwing Out Extensive Porn Collection
A 42-year-old man from Michigan in the United States of America dragged his parents to court after they had thrown out his porn collection which has been valued at US$25 000 and he won the lawsuit.
David Werking had been staying with his parents in the Grand Haven in 2016 when Beth and Paul, his mother and father, threw the steamy stash away, which he claims was worth $25,000, according to court papers filed this week.
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney ruled on December 10 that the parents have to pay for the replacement of the “trove of pornography” and “array of sex toys” which they had thrown away.
The couple’s claim that they had ordered their son not to bring sex toys and movies in the house after his divorce in 2016 was shutdown by the judge.
“This defense fails on both the facts and on the law,” Maloney wrote in the judgement. “Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.”
The smut-centric spat first flared up in 2017 after Werking moved out of his parents’ home and moved to Indiana.
After he had moved to Indiana, he asked for his belongings he had left behind and to his surprise many of his kinky collection were missing and his parents later admitted that they had thrown them away, according to the lawsuit.
“Frankly, David, I did you a big favor getting rid of all this stuff,” his dad said in an email.
Werking replied back: “You don’t have to take someone else’s stuff, and I would like it back, along with the sex toys… [and] 1 long container of smutty magazines.”
His parents felt that it maybe illegal to throw some of the things, so they kept some of the porn, which can be said to be the, “worst of the worst” safely in a deposit box.
“This was a collection of often irreplaceable items and property,” said Werking’s lawyer, Miles Greengard, according to mlive.com.
But in the end, the judge ruled Werking’s mom and dad were.expected to pay back their son for the porn.
“In this case, there is no question that the destroyed property was David’s property. Defendants repeatedly admitted that they destroyed the property, and they do not dispute that they destroyed the property,” the Maloney wrote in the judgement.
Werking and his parents have been given a grace period of upto mid-February to file written submissions outlining damages.
