Man Wins Lawsuit Against Parents Who Threw Out His Porn Collection

A 42-year-old Michigan man, who had filed a lawsuit against his parents for throwing out his prized porn collection, has now won the case against them for reimbursement.

The Grand Haven couple was sued by their son for throwing away his porn collection, which he claims was worth $25,000. The court is yet to determine the compensation the couple needs to pay their son for the lost items, news outlet MLive reported.

David Werking moved into his parent’s house in Grand Haven in October 2016 after his divorce, and after 10 months, shifted to a home in Indiana. His parents delivered his belongings in packed boxes to his new home, following which he noticed many boxes containing his porn collection were missing.

He sued his parents, Berth Werking and Paul Werking, after they admitted they have destroyed the collection.

The man emailed his parents asking them for an explanation, and said, “If you had a problem with my belongings, you should have stated that at the time and I would have gone elsewhere.”

According to the lawsuit, his father, in his response, said, “Believe it or not, one reason for why I destroyed your porn was for your own mental and emotional health. ... I would have done the same if I had found a kilo of crack cocaine. Someday, I hope you will understand,” reported ABC13.

His parents had kept some of the items in a safe deposit, fearing they were illegal, court documents mentioned.

David denied the claim that he had owned any illegal porn. Ottawa County Sheriff’s department reviewed the materials and found no evidence of child pornography, and no charges were made against him, ABC13 reported.

The complainant’s attorney Miles Greengard argued in the court that David should receive treble damages. He explained the case was not just about a guy and his dirty magazines but the destruction of “irreplaceable items and properties,” MLive reported.

The judge had earlier rejected the parent’s request to dismiss the case. In the new ruling, the court has found the parents had converted their son’s property “to their own use." The court explained that the broad term “conversion to own use” also included destroying the property due to their belief in its deleterious effect.

“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,” District Judge Paul Malone wrote in the judgment.

The court has given both parties time until mid-February to file written submissions outlining the damages.