Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Windflier
Their aversion to the character of his belongings is a moot point. They had no right to do what they did.

It is the germane point, if they can establish that his tenancy was predicated on his accepting their terms, including a prohibition on pornography. HE was the one in violation, since he had tacitly (or explicitly) agreed that the parents would not accept porn in their house.

The parents have a pretty strong case, depending on what they can prove about any prior agreements on the terms of his tenancy.

51 posted on 04/14/2019 9:49:19 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: IronJack
...if they can establish that his tenancy was predicated on his accepting their terms, including a prohibition on pornography. HE was the one in violation, since he had tacitly (or explicitly) agreed that the parents would not accept porn in their house.

That's a big IF, and even if the court finds for the landlords on that point, there's still the destruction of the tenant's personal property to be adjudged.

Bringing his porn collection onto the landlord's property could be judged as sufficient grounds for eviction, but that doesn't give the landlord the right to destroy the tenant's personal property.

69 posted on 04/14/2019 11:24:58 AM PDT by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson