Posted on 12/18/2020 3:17:30 PM PST by rickmichaels
A Michigan couple will have to pay a yet-to-be-determined amount after tossing out their son’s extensive porn collection. David Werking, 42, sued his parents — Beth and Paul Werking — for disposing of what a judge called “a trove of pornography and an array of sex toys.”
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, in Kalamazoo, granted the son’s request for summary judgment in his favor. The parties have until mid-February to file written submissions on damages.
The parents’ attorney, Anne Marie VanderBroek, said she is working to establish the value of the items that were disposed of but declined to comment about the case. David Werking contends damages are around US $25,000. His attorney, Miles Greengard, contends his client should receive treble damages (three times the actual or compensatory damages) permissible under his claim of conversion of property.
“We have asked the court for treble damages, which we believe are warranted given the wanton destruction of the property,” he said. He was pleased with the judge’s ruling.
The case wasn’t just about a man and his dirty mags. “This was a collection of often irreplaceable items and property,” Greengard said. His client had moved into his parents’ home in Western Michigan in late 2016 following a divorce. After he left for Muncie, Ind., he expected them to deliver his belongings. He later realized that a dozen boxes of pornographic films and magazines were missing. His father said in an email: “Frankly, David, I did you a big favor getting rid of all this stuff.”
The judge earlier rejected the parents’ request to dismiss the case.
“Getting to the heart of the coconut now, the legal issue before the court is whether Paul and Beth converted David’s pornography ‘to their own use,’” Maloney wrote earlier. He found that they did. The parents had kept some materials, described as the “worst of the worst,” in a safety deposit box, fearful it could be illegal.
Ottawa County Sheriff’s Department reviewed the materials and found no evidence of child pornography and no charges resulted.
Keep in mind knowing/comprehending/understanding the purpose of.... the law... are very huge lines, not fine, especially with an ignorant LEO/dectective who thinks they are Judge Dredd.
Dang! We definitely have experts here!
huh?
“How the hell would some officer know the legalities?”
Perhaps because they are directed to enforce the legalities.
LEOs do not make a lawyer's salary to point out their lack of investigation skills, especially in a case like this. Otherwise, a lot of lawyers would be poor/out-of-a-job because there would be no mistakes to point out that authorities make.
“Are LEOs omnipotent and take the time to find details in a no-nothing case where they are just looking at titles and appraisals?”
They had the items in their possession. I guess they had to stay late to view them.
Getting paid to engage in circle jerks is part of the perks I guess.
Going through $25,000 worth probably required a lot of lubrication, lol.
Most were destroyed. For some strange reason the dad saved (per his words) the ones that he thought were illegal.
So give him an invoice for all the freebies they provided him - and make it $10K higher than whatever the pinhead court decides they have to pay.
They should have been dealt with like cockroaches. You do not need permission to exclude them, but immoral courts treat porn as protected speech.
No, I’m just kidding unfairly at her expense based on her comments in the article and managing to lose this case. Her online material does not promote her as being a defense attorney:
“Anne VanderBroek, an experienced estate planning attorney, can help you design an estate plan that includes instructions for managing your assets during any time of incapacity, provide for loved ones after you are gone (including minor children, aging parents, or those with special needs), avoid probate at death, reduce or eliminate estate taxes, and leave a charitable legacy.”
“No, I’m just kidding unfairly at her expense based on her comments in the article and managing to lose this case.”
Hard to win when your client says ‘I did it’.
“So give him an invoice for all the freebies they provided him - and make it $10K higher than whatever the pinhead court decides they have to pay.”
Unless they can show an agreement they have no case.
This world is going haywire!
The son is a deadbeat. Even his communications with his parents as a freeloading son were that the room they were giving him was not good enough.
The suit was a temper tantrum by an immature spoiled brat, most likely a starving artist. This one will kick him in the arse.
First, he just lost far more in the long run. Not only his relationship with his parents and family, but most likely far more in future inheritance.
The comments from fellow Freepers reflect a lot about their personal life and personal relationship with their parents.
If he were mature
I’ve been in many court cases as an expert witness on valuation. Original cost is only one of many factors in determining current market value.
This is not an insurance claim, it is a claim for damages. The nut most likely thinks his artwork is priceless.
Before that we had Maggie and Jiggs cartoon porn.
“Does he have enough money now to get this own place?”
Care to read the article?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.