Now, State Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood has released his ruling, siding with the parents.
First, let’s catch you up.
Christina and Mark Rotondo had been trying to get their son Michael to move out for several months. According to WSTM news, the parents gave their son numerous written warnings that he ignored.
One such warning was issued on February 2. The frustrated couple informed their son he would have to leave within 14 days.
He did not leave.
Two weeks later, they issued him another notice telling him he was “hereby evicted.” They allowed him until March 15 to find alternative accommodations.
He did not leave.
A third note from the parents offers the 30-year-old so he “can find a place to stay,” according to the court filing. Along with the monetary offer, it offers 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.
The son’s response, pre-judge-ruling was priceless — or perhaps moneyless: The grown man says the five written notices from his parents did not give him adequate time to pack his bags and get out.
What’s more, Michael says 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.”
Tuesday the judge ruled in the parents’ favour and ordered Michael Rotondo to leave after having a room for eight years.
But Michael contends he is owed a six-month notice. The judge called that contention, “outrageous.” Michael retorted the judge’s “outrageous” reply was “outrageous” in and of itself.