Parents Go To Court In Order To Kick Their 30-Year-Old Son Out Of Their Home
It’s the story that has been sweeping the nation the past couple of weeks, a couple of US parents took their 30-year-old son to court because he refused to leave their house (I can almost hear the millenials of the world shaking in fear).
Mark and Christina Rotondo had to go to extreme measures to get their 30-year-old son, Michael, to finally move out of their house and no, I’m not just talking about changing the wi-fi password. The distraught couple actually had to take their own son to court and put him up infront of a judge and argue their case… they wanted him gone, and they wanted him gone now.
To learn the full details of possibly one of the most bizarre court cases I’ve ever heard of, continue reading below;
This is Michael Rotondo. He’s 30 year’s old, unemployed and still lives with his parents. Any takers ladies? Not only do he still live with his parents, but he downright refuses to spread his wings and fly the family nest, much to his parents dismay. So they did what any loving, desperate parents would do in that situation… they sued him.
It all started when Michael lost his job and his parents very generously said he could move back in with them on a short term basis while he was trying to get back on his feet… that was 8 years ago. Yep, that’s right, 8. And to his parents, it looked seriously like things wouldn’t be changing anytime soon, and thought thought of another 8 years, well, it sent them over the edge.
Now, this may sound like a dramatic thing to do, but this really was the last resort for the two. They had tried pretty much everything to motivate their son to go out and start living his own life. They repeatedly sent him formal letters regarding the subject, including one on February 2nd which stated;
“Michael, after a discussion with your mother, we have decided that you must leave this house immediately.
You have 14 days to vacate. You will not be allowed to return. We will take whatever actions are necessary to enforce this decision.”
and soon after, they sent him another notice which stated;
“Michael Joseph Rotondo, you are hereby evicted.”
Yet still, Michael refused to get the hell out of there. I mean, come on Michael, take the darn hint already! Even then, after yet another failed attempt they still offered their son a full $1,100 in order to help him find a place to stay… what more could you ask for? Suprise suprise however, Michael resisted each and every “trick” his parents tried.
To add insult to injury, not only was Michael refusing to leave, but during hnis 8 years since moving back with his parents, he also refused to get a job, citing that he couldn’t get one due to his “poor work history” and that he didn’t want to get one as he was busy “focusing on being a father right now”. An unemployed father who still lives with his parents… that’s some great focus you have there Mike! Good job!
Michael’s parents responded to their son’s motivation (or lack-there-of) by telling him; “There are jobs available even for thosewith a poor work history like you,” which they added to the note sent on 18 February. “Get one – you have to work!”
And it appears that this really was the final straw for the two, as shortly after Mr & Mrs Rotondo ended up going to their local court to try and evict their son. However, the case was then referred to the state Supreme Court… and this is where the fun really began.
30 year old Michael Rotondo defended himself (because of course he did) by claiming that, for the past 8 years he “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement”.
He also then went on to tell the judge that there was a “common law requirement of six-month notice to quit” before a tenant was “removed through ejectment action”, sure, because 8 years of eviction letters and HUGE hints being dropped just isn’t enough right?
During the trial, Michael mentioned that his relationship with his parents had become very strained (Er, yeah, I bet) and that the three of them never talk or interact while inside the home.
“After a while it just kind of beats itself down to where there’s nothing left,” he stated.
He was asked how he managed to avoid them, whether or not he lived in a basement, but Michael simply replied that he resided in a bedroom and did not wish to go into more detail about it. It is also said that he complained that “the judge hadn’t read his case properly, and therefore could not make a proper informed decision.”.
In a 30-minute-long back and forth conversation Tuesday, he told State Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood that he needed at least six more months at his parents’ house… a request to which Greenwood referred to as “outrageous” (which to be fair, it was) and try to encourage Michael to actually address his parents directly while in the courtroom. Michael, of course, refused to do this. (Classic Mike, amiright?)
It is reported that Michael Rotondo eventually seem to resign to moving out, stating that actually, “I don’t want to live there anymore”… erm, WHAT? He did however say that he needed several months to do that, as at the time he didn’t have the means to do it “tomorrow”.
So “shockingly”, after considering all the evidence, the judge ruled in the favour of Michael’s parents, HALLELUJAH!
It is yet to be reported when Michael will actually be moving out, but I’m pretty sure his poor parents have a bottle of Dom Perignon saved especially for the occassion.