CNN (“A judge sides with parents and rules their 30-year-old son must move out“):
A 30-year-old man didn’t get the message that it was time to move out of his parents’ home, even after they left him five notices and an offer of cash to help find new digs.
The New York family drama eventually rolled into the court system, where a judge on Tuesday ruled in the parents’ favor and ordered Michael Rotondo to leave after having a room for eight years.
But Rotondo contends he is owed a six-month notice. ”I just wanted a reasonable amount of time to vacate, with consideration to the fact that I was not really prepared to support myself at the time of the notices,” he told CNN affiliate WSTM.
Christina and Mark Rotondo of Camillus started the court proceedings earlier this month and filed evidence of five notices they served their son, starting in February.
One note on February 2 reads:
“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.”
Shortly after this notice, his parents decided to seek legal counsel and served another notice on February 13, granting Michael 30 days to move out or they would begin enforcement procedures.
Five days later, in another note, the parents offered some advice and gifted Michael $1,100 to help him find a new place to live.
“Some advice:1) Organize the things you need for work and to manage an apartment. Note: You will need stuff at (redacted). 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 a 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.”Michael still didn’t heed the notice that it was time to move on, and according to a note dated March 5 his parents reminded him of the looming deadline of March 15, documents show.
“So far we have seen no indication that you are preparing to leave.” It adds, “Be aware that we will take any appropriate actions necessary to make sure you leave the house as demanded.”
The fifth and final notice on March 30 presents Michael some options to get his broken down vehicle off their property, and in all the options his parents offer to help pay for the repairs.
Since he still refused to leave, his parents filed for an ejectment proceeding to end what some might call a failure to launch.
Michael asked the court to dismiss the request. He claimed that for the past eight years he “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement,” according to filings obtained by CNN affiliate WSTM.
A WaPo report describes the legal back-and-forth in the courtroom:
[T]he 30-year-old argued for a half-hour with a judge in Upstate New York on Tuesday, saying that while he knew his parents wanted him out of their split-level ranch, he was entitled — as a family member — to six months’ notice before an eviction.
State Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood praised Rotondo for his legal research.
Then, he ordered that Rotondo be evicted anyway, according to the Post-Standard.
“I want you out of that household,” Greenwood told him, according to ABC News.
[…]
Rotondo put up a tough fight, refusing to speak directly to his parents in court, relying only on his legal arguments.
Greenwood listened quietly, then corrected Rotondo’s claim that he was entitled to live in the house for six more months, according to the Post-Standard. He said family members get special treatment in only rare circumstances and called the six-month extension “outrageous.”
Rotondo fired back, calling the judge’s eviction order “outrageous.” Greenwood said Rotondo’s claims were based off an Internet search and showed him a copy of the appellate court decision that overrode Rotondo’s argument.
Still, Rotondo insisted the judge was wrong.
Aside from the comedic value of all this, it’s just completely bizarre. Rotondo appears to be reasonably bright and even somewhat resourceful in terms of doing legal research and finding loopholes. He claims to run some sort of “business” which he uses to pay for his own food. But the notion that he has an inherent right to live with his parents indefinitely is just baffling.
