After their 30-year-old son ignored their pleas to move out of their home, fed-up parents did the only rational thing they could think of: filed an eviction suit against him.
Mark and Christina Rotondo, from New York, took in their son Michael, then 22, after he fell on hard times and lost his job. That was eight years ago. And he has refused to leave ever since.Though the Rotondos tried to reason with their son, asking him nicely countless times through letters and notices to move out, even offering $1,100 to help him gain his bearings, he didn't budge.
One of the notes, dated February 2, reads:"Michael, After a discussion with your Mother, we have decided 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. Mark and Christina Rotondo"Shortly after the first notice, on February 13, he received another that said, "You are hereby evicted from 408 Weatheridge Drive, Camillus, New York effective immediately." The letter also informed him that he was granted up to 30 days to remove his possessions and vacate the premises. Then, when that didn't make things clear, the parents sent him yet another letter five days later that stated:
"Michael, Here is $1,100 from us to you so you can find a place to stay. Some advice: 1) Organize the thing you need for work and to manage an apartment. Note: You will need stuff at Paul Ave. You must arrange the date and time through your Father so he can set it up with the tenant. 2) Sell the other things you have that have any significant value, (e.g. stereo, some tools, etc.). This is especially true for any weapons you may have. You need the money and will have no place for the stuff. 3) There are jobs available even for those with poor work history like you. Get one -- you have to work! 4) If you want help finding a place, your Mother has offered to help you. Christina and Mark Rotondo"A fourth letter reminded Michael that he had 11 days to leave or else his parents would have to "take any appropriate actions necessary." The fifth and final notice was sent on March 30, with the parents telling their son to remove his broken-down car off their property:
"Michael, You have three acceptable options regarding your vehicle (a Volkswagen Passat). 1) You can work on the car to effect the necessary repairs. We may offer you financial assistance for this. 2) You can take the car to a repair facility to get to get it fixed. We may offer you financial assitance for this. 3) Get the vehicle off the property if it cannot be repaired. We will pay for its removal. Unless you are going to work on the car immediately, get it off of the ramps. Christina and Mark Rotondo"
Now, think about it for a moment. How many times has your mom or dad asked you to do something and you didn't listen? Exactly. So you know these parents tried their best.
But, apparently, their best wasn't enough because after sending him five notices, it took taking Michael to court in order for him to (finally) get the message that he was no longer welcome in their home. Even then, he still fought them.
Michael, who represented himself in court, claimed that he was owed a six-month notice, arguing that it goes against the 2006 case of Kosa v. Legg: "that there is 'Common law requirement of six-month notice to quit before tenant may be removed through ejectment action.'" [caption id="attachment_37457" align="aligncenter" width="780"]
Michael Rotondo (left) and his parents Christina and Mark Rotondo (left) during the court case. | Courtesy of Syracuse.com (via YouTube)[/caption]
However, during the hearing on Tuesday, May 22, New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood sided with the Rotondos.
"I'm granting the eviction. I think the notice is sufficient," Greenwood said.
Michael, on the other hand, claimed that it was "outrageous" and has promised to appeal the decision.
"It seems to me like I should be provided with, you know, 30 days or so, because generally, you get 30 days after you're found, you know, to have to vacate the premises," Michael said after court. "So I'm expecting something like that. But realistically, if that's not the case, I don't know."
A date for when he has to move out of his parents' home is not yet clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA83KYq8x6A
Now, I'm not sure about you, but I am beyond grateful that my parents never took any legal actions against me when I lived with them for a brief amount of time after graduating from college. Then again, I only lived with them for about a year (not eight years) before finding a place of my own. So ...
What do you think? Were the Rotondos justified in their decision to take their 30-year-old son to court? Share your thoughts with us in the comments, and let's get the conversation started.
