Son wins lawsuit after mom throws away his best porno mags

Authored by mlive.com and submitted by wesleynile

OTTAWA COUNTY, MI – A Grand Haven couple will have to pay for disposing of their son’s pornography collection.

The only question is how much.

David Werking, 42, sued his parents, Beth and Paul Werking, after they tossed out 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 $25,000.

His attorney, Miles Greengard, contends that his client should receive treble damages, which is allowed 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 guy and his dirty magazines.

“This was a collection of often irreplaceable items and property,” Greengard said.

His client had moved into his parents’ home in late 2016 after a divorce. After he left for Muncie, Indiana, 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.

In his latest ruling, he said: “As early as 1874, Michigan courts have recognized that conversion to one’s ‘own use’ was broad and could include destruction due to the converter’s ‘belief in [the destroyed item’s] deleterious effects.’”

The Michigan Supreme Court confirmed that conclusion in 2015, Maloney wrote.

“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. Therefore, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact on David’s statutory conversion claim.”

The parents had called police on Aug. 23, 2017, over an “incident” and asked that their son leave for at least three days. The son repeatedly contacted his parents and tried to retrieve his property from their home, the judge said.

The parents said they had told their son when he moved in that he could not bring pornography into their home or it would be destroyed. They also contended he had abandoned the property and said he could have mitigated his losses by removing it himself.

The judge said the parents would not allow him back and that they said they would ship his property to him.

The parents had kept some materials, described as the “worst of the worst,” in a safety-deposit box, concerned it could be illegal.

Ottawa County Sheriff’s Department reviewed the materials and found no evidence of child pornography. No charges resulted.

Parents who were sued for tossing son’s porn collection kept ‘worst of worst’ as evidence, attorney says

MSP honors trooper who crawled through smoke to save unconscious woman from house fire

Where to see enchanting Christmas light displays across Michigan

luvsbigtitties on December 17th, 2020 at 19:26 UTC »

I was wondering how a Federal court had jurisdiction over the matter, but it looks like the son and the parents are citizens of different states. Even then, the "amount in controversy" needs to be greater than $75,000. It looks like under the conversion statute the porno valued at $25,557.89 can be subject to triple damages, which puts this just above the diversity jurisdiction level.

Very interesting to myself, a bored and horny lawyer.

kirby31200 on December 17th, 2020 at 18:53 UTC »

The headline didn’t mention they also threw out “an array of sex toys” which is probably the more important part. Quality sex toys can be rather expensive

jawz on December 17th, 2020 at 18:48 UTC »

The parents had kept some materials, described as the “worst of the worst,” in a safety-deposit box, concerned it could be illegal.

Ottawa County Sheriff’s Department reviewed the materials and found no evidence of child pornography. No charges resulted.

Wonder what their idea of worst of the worst is if it's not child pornography.