Bad parenting

[Gob]

A man who sued his parents for getting rid of his pornography collection has won a lawsuit in western Michigan and can seek compensation.

The US district judge Paul Maloney ruled in favour of David Werking, who said his parents had no right to throw out his collection. He lived at their Grand Haven home for 10 months after a divorce before moving to Muncie, Indiana.

Werking said boxes of films and magazines worth an estimated $29,000 (£21,500) were missing.

“There is no question that the destroyed property was David’s property,” Maloney said. “Defendants repeatedly admitted that they destroyed the property.”

Werking’s parents said they had a right to act as his landlords. “Defendants do not cite to any statute or caselaw to support their assertion that landlords can destroy property that they dislike,” the judge said.

Maloney told both sides to file briefs on the financial value of the collection. “The court does not intend to hold an evidentiary hearing,“ he said.

[ex-khobar Andy]

A man who sued his parents for getting rid of his pornography collection has won a lawsuit in western Michigan and can seek compensation.

The US district judge Paul Maloney ruled in favour of David Weranking, who said his parents had no right to throw out his collection. He lived at their Grand Haven home for 10 months after a divorce before moving to Muncie, Indiana.

Weranking said boxes of films and magazines worth an estimated $29,000 (£21,500) were missing.

“There is no question that the destroyed property was David’s property,” Maloney said. “Defendants repeatedly admitted that they destroyed the property.”

Weranking’s parents said they had a right to act as his landlords. “Defendants do not cite to any statute or caselaw to support their assertion that landlords can destroy property that they dislike,” the judge said.

Maloney told both sides to file briefs on the financial value of the collection. “The court does not intend to hold an evidentiary hearing,“ he said.

I fixed your typos there for you, Gob.

[BoSoxGal]

He lived at their Grand Haven home for 10 months after a divorce

Can’t imagine why he got divorced.

[Big RR]

I as thinking that myself.

And FWIW, I'm not sure why this is in federal court as it is a state matter. If he moved to another state he could access the federal court through diversity jurisdiction but, as I recall, the amount in dispute to qualify must be at least $75,000 (far more than $29,000). But the NY Post confirms that is was in Federal court and that he won (not sure why). https://nypost.com/2020/12/17/man-wins- ... e-of-porn/

My guess is that the parents did not dispute that they destroyed the porn, or that they agreed to keep his stuff until he got settled. But I still don't understand federal jurisdiction, is it because his right to own pornography was involved? Usually a property owner can destroy abandoned property absent an agreement to care for it (which I guess the court ruled was the case), but something else must be the case here.

BTW, I found the court's opnion granting summary judgment for Werklin, but the facts are a little more in his favor:

In October 2016, after divorcing his wife, David Werking moved in with his parents, Paul and Beth Werking (David Werking Affidavit, ECF No. 16-9 at ¶ 4). David1 brought personal property with him, including a large collection of pornographic material (Id. at ¶ 5). But by August of 2017, tensions between David and his parents were running high (Id. at ¶ 9). On August 23, 2017, David called the police after an “incident,” and the officers asked David to leave the home for at least three days (Id.). When he left, David left much of his property behind; he asked his parents to return the property to him multiple times over the following months (see, e.g., Email from David to Paul dated October 12, 2017 at ECF No. 1 Because all parties share a surname, the Court will refer to the parties by their first names in this opinion. Case 1:19-cv-00276-PLM-RSK ECF No. 45, PageID.777 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 8
2 39-4; Email from David to Paul dated November 22, 2017 at ECF No. 16-5; Email from David to Paul dated December 30, 2017 at ECF No. 16-3). But on January 1, 2018, Paul informed David that any property that had not yet been returned to him had been destroyed, including the pornographic material (Email from Paul to David at ECF No. 16-3).

Anyone interested can read the opinion at https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/61/ ... 960267.pdf. Sadly, it does not address the court's jurisdiction. But the nature of the porn is not part of the opinion, which was decided un Michigan Law.

[BoSoxGal]

I never questioned the ruling from the first I heard of the story, as landlord obligations with regard to tenant property are usually pretty clear and as most states have adopted uniform landlord/tenant legislation I was more surprised to even see the case at all because what lawyer counseled the parents that they had a good case? Or maybe they’re just so stubborn they insisted on persisting in the face of very poor odds of prevailing.

I would also love to know what got the case into federal court, I’m going to do some digging and will report back. There must be a filing somewhere that addresses the jurisdictional issue.

[Big RR]

I agree BSG, if the parents are even landlords under Michigan law (and that I do not know); but even then, abandoned property can eventually be disposed of in most states. Of course, it does not appear (from the opinion, that the property was abandoned as he requested it to be returned a number of times and they ignored, or refused, the requests. My guess is they destroyed the property and decided to defend against the suit--they lost on summary judgment, so they really had no defense of any consequence.

[Guinevere]

The claim is one for statutory conversion under the Michigan code, and jurisdiction is in the federal court based on diversity. The demand exceeds $75,000 because the statute allows for treble damages (plus costs and attorney's fees).

There were several Motions to Dismiss filed on jurisdictional grounds. The court denied them all.

[Long Run]

It was no Grand Haven for the Werking collection

or

Making a federal case out of a family squabble

or

coming soon to Showtime After Hours: Werking Hard at Home, followed by Werking Finds Ball State Better

[BoSoxGal]

The claim is one for statutory conversion under the Michigan code, and jurisdiction is in the federal court based on diversity. The demand exceeds $75,000 because the statute allows for treble damages (plus costs and attorney's fees).

There were several Motions to Dismiss filed on jurisdictional grounds. The court denied them all.

I always love it when someone else in the study group shows up with a finished outline!

[ex-khobar Andy]

. . . jurisdiction is in the federal court based on diversity.

I don't understand what those words mean. Is there a federal civil rights issue? I agree that it seems clear cut: landlords cannot dispose of tenants' property regardless of whether it is Rembrandt or porn.

My guess is that he'll get his triple damages which might amount to a few tens of thousands. But they will cut him out of their will so I hope he has done the arithmetic.

[Guinevere]

. . . jurisdiction is in the federal court based on diversity.

I don't understand what those words mean. Is there a federal civil rights issue? I agree that it seems clear cut: landlords cannot dispose of tenants' property regardless of whether it is Rembrandt or porn.

My guess is that he'll get his triple damages which might amount to a few tens of thousands. But they will cut him out of their will so I hope he has done the arithmetic.

Jurisdiction is available in federal trial courts, even when the question is one of state law, where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties involved in the claim. So here, Mom&Dad (Defendants) are in Michigan, and son (Plaintiff) in Indiana. There has to be a minimum value of $75,000 to be able to achieve diversity jurisdiction too (so the federal courts don't take on piddling matters . . . ). Here, the alleged value of the items destroyed exceeds $25,000, so multiply by three, add court costs and attorney's fees, and the claim is over the threshold.

The issue isn't a landlord tenant issue. Conversion is a civil claim, where one person "uses" the property of another, without permission. Use is broadly defined and includes, according to the judge, destruction of someone’s property because you think its bad for them. Mom and Dad admit destroying the items, and claim it was for son’s own good.

The Court has not ruled on the value of damages, and is not taking evidence in a live hearing on that point. It is simply seeking briefs from the parties, and will rule on the papers.

As for inheritance, just because he gets a judgment in his favor doesn’t mean he will actually collect on it.....

[Sue U]

coming soon to Showtime After Hours: Werking Hard at Home, followed by Werking Finds Ball State Better

Here, let me help:

Werking It and Werking It 2: In Camera Review

The claim is one for statutory conversion under the Michigan code, and jurisdiction is in the federal court based on diversity. The demand exceeds $75,000 because the statute allows for treble damages (plus costs and attorney's fees).

There were several Motions to Dismiss filed on jurisdictional grounds. The court denied them all.

I always love it when someone else in the study group shows up with a finished outline!

[Guinevere]

And this is why I never did study groups. Lawyers are not herd animals

[ex-khobar Andy]

Thanks Guin.

And

. . . just because he gets a judgment in his favor doesn’t mean he will actually collect on it.....

Too right. The only time I have ever sued anyone, it was Small Claims in NYS, 1995 or so. A home improvement contractor to whom I had paid approx $2600 in upfront costs - IIRC it was something like 30% at contract, 30% on starting and 40% at completion - never showed up to do the work. So I sued; they didn't even come to court; I won for the full amount; and they declared bankruptcy the next day. I seem to remember getting monthly checks for $13 for less than a year, and then they dried up. I just checked them out: they are still in business but with an F from BBB.

[Guinevere]

The only time I have ever sued anyone,...[]

Turn in your Amurucan card immediately. Doncha know we’re suit happy here?

[Big RR]

Thanks Guin--I didn't think of the trebling of the amount sued for and attorneys fees, but jurisdiction makes sense in light of it. Good to get the opinion of a litigator. However, even though the suit is for conversion, landlord tenant might apply because landlords generally have a statutory right to dispose of abandoned property left behind by a departing tenant. Of course, this would depend on whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed under state law (and as I recall, the court ruled the landlord tenant did not apply because of the lack of a written lease).

[Sue U]

Oh hai, federal jurisdiction, it's a hoot!

And this is why I never did study groups. Lawyers are not herd animals

If it wasn't for my study group, I never would have figured out what is/is not entrapment in criminal law. I had a separate study group for the Tax Honors program, and we spent three years together just having a ball (hard to believe, but tax law actually can be hilarious -- if you're a ginormous nerd like me.)

[Big RR]

I always found study groups to be helpful. In fact, we had a guy in our group who none of us really cared for because we could always count on him for an alternative point of view (and, presumably, he could count on us to reign him in); it was a real help come exam time (some of his conclusions were pretty off the wall, but they illustrated an alternative way to analyze a situation, which was a big help for law school exams). He graduated but, sadly, could not make it in legal practice as he had a distinct way of not seeing the forest for the trees.

[Guinevere]

Oh hai, federal jurisdiction, it's a hoot!

And this is why I never did study groups. Lawyers are not herd animals

If it wasn't for my study group, I never would have figured out what is/is not entrapment in criminal law. I had a separate study group for the Tax Honors program, and we spent three years together just having a ball (hard to believe, but tax law actually can be hilarious -- if you're a ginormous nerd like me.)

Oh I’m a nerd, but tax law, lordy nozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz