A 30-year-old man is being sued by his parents because he refuses to leave home

In most cases, there's nothing wrong with living with your parents as an adult — after all, Michael B. Jordan does it. But one man in Central New York seems to have overstayed his welcome at his childhood home.

Michael Rotondo, 30, has been living at his parents' place in Camillus, New York, without paying rent. But now they want him out.

Christina and Mark Rotondo repeatedly asked Michael to move out of their house — but claim he has refused to do so. Now, Christina and Mark are now seeking legal action in the case of their son's eviction.

The process began on February 2, 2018, when Mark penned a letter to Michael telling him to move out, according to Syracuse.com.

"After a discussion with your Mother, we have decided that you must leave this house immediately," Mark and Christina wrote in a letter filed with the court. "You have 14 days to vacate. You will not be allowed to return. We will take whatever actions are necessary to enforce this decision."

But their adult son remained.

In a letter dated February 13, 2018, Christina, who owns the house, once again told Michael to move out. She gave him 30 additional days to vacate the premises.

"Michael Joseph Rotondo, you are hereby evicted from 408 Weatheridge Drive, Camillus, New York, effective immediately," she wrote. "You have heretofore been our guest and there is no lease or agreement that gives you any right to stay here without our consent."

Michael wouldn't budge.

A few days later, the parents tried again. In a letter dated February 18, 2018, they offered their son $1,100 to move out. They also offered him four pieces of advice:

But that didn't seem to work either. In a March 5, 2018, letter to Michael, Mark and Christina said they had seen "no indication that you are preparing to leave," and warned that they would take "any appropriate actions necessary to make sure you leave the house as demanded."

In the final letter, which was dated March 30, 2018, the couple told Michael to remove or repair his broken Volkswagen Passat and offered their financial assistance for doing so.

Still, Michael remains under their roof.

In April, the couple went to Camillus town court for help in the eviction process, according to Syracuse.com. However, they learned that you need to go to a Supreme Court to remove a family member.

On May 7, the couple filed a petition with the Onondaga County Supreme Court.

Source.

Who is in the wrong here!?

Son

The parents! They should have kicked him out a decade ago. Don't ask.

I mostly say the son is in the wrong, but it sounds like the whole family deserves each other.

Wow. Well I will say, it is difficult to find affordable places to live. He will either have to move further away from where he is, or else find a roommate to get a place with.

I don't know the guy's situation, but I think most people should want to have their own place by that age. If he were at least paying rent or giving his parents assistance in some way then they probably wouldn't mind his staying there, though it sounds like he is free-loading. And you can only really give your kids so many chances before it's time to kick them out.

I think in some situations this is understandable. Some families want their single daughters to stay with them until they marry. And a lot of people have medical issues and have to stay with their parents a while longer. But I really don't ever want to be that guy who has to move back home. Hopefully this guy comes to his senses and gets a (job? and) place.

Isn't it kinda hard to get your own place without a job?

Time to bust out the choloroform and drive way out to the middle of nowhere.

I couldn't wait to leave home when I was a teenager.

Um...should it really be this hard kicking someone out of your house? I know there've got to be plenty of families where the son or daughter or grandpa got kicked the **** out. I realize that you've generally gotta give something like 30 days to leave even if they're not paying rent, but should it really require nearly 4 months and a lawsuit in order to get the person out?

I livr with my parents yet I pay my share, never ask for anything except assistance with my disability. Everything I own I payed for myself. This guy did not help pay his share of the rent so I can see the parents point but still you're kicking out your own kid.

There's a lot of losers out there still living exactly like they did when they were 12. There is something mentally wrong with any adult that still has the lifestyle of a child, paying rent or not but I would have physically removed him and his stuff along with changing the door locks.

I lived with my parents almost until my mid twenties since an apartment in the area I worked at was double my monthly wager but I split the bills and did stuff around the house. No excuse to freeload at 30 and if you're over 18 and your parents want you out you get out...

Son. He needs to grow up and move out.

For one thing, the Parents are the blame here for not teaching there Son to get a job at a young age and know what it's like to have your own place.

Yeah God forbid we hold individuals accountable for themselves. smh

Under the law the man is a tenant and the parents are landlords. It would send an awfully bad precedent if landlords are able to kick people out easily and create more homeless. Not sure where you got the "30 days to leave" number but to get evicted in NY takes like six months.

Having said that, this man is obviously lazy and in the wrong.

once you are grown parents owe you nothing.

you dont have to sue them.

just have them arrested. over 18? can totally do that

It's hard to get your own place with a job.

Arrest for what exactly?

if a person is in your house, you ask them to leave, they do not, you can have them arrested for trespassing.

are you actually asking me why I cant legally ask a person to leave my house and a lawsuit is my only option?

I should be invited to dinner more often! I will just stay, wait for the lawsuit!

People whose primary residence is your home have all the same rights as tenants. You cannot just have someone kicked out of your house and/or arrested for trespassing at the drop of a dime if they already live there, just like a spouse cannot simply kick their spouse out of their house without some perceived threat. I don't know what exactly the legal requirements are where there person is living, but instant eviction with no notice is not an option.

so if I make primary residence my sisters house without her knowing it, i can go for dinner and just stay.

is that how the law works? unclear about this stuff

Is he paying rent? Do they have a contract?

No, you can't just "make" someone's house your primary residence. However, if your sister invited you over and you stayed for a prolonged period of time, your lease expired/you lost your house, and you lived at your sister's house for all intents and purposes, then yes, that is your primary residence whether you had formally agreed to it or not and you are entitled to all the rights that tenants have.

Doesn't matter. If he was living there you can't just kick him out. You can go through the necessary steps to give him notice to tell him you're kicking him out, which it looks like they're doing, but you can't just kick him out. If this wasn't the case then spouses who don't work could be kicked out, elderly and disabled family members could be kicked out, even having lazy family members kicked out without any notice can be detrimental to society. It's better to have someone working and paying rent than on the street and trying to find a job and/or home.

@LJS9502_basic: Not sure, but that’s not really important legally. All he needs is some documentation like a driver’s license or any mail delivered item with his address on it to prove he lives there.

i did not know that.

A person in your house and a person residing in your house are two different things.

If you openly admit to being unclear, why are you suggesting the person should be arrested for trespassing when he ISN'T trespassing?

because I had not considered that angle and I was in fact not even aware that the law was that way.

to me it appeared rather simple

It should be simple but it is not. On the surface it looks as if the tenant has more rights and leverage than the owner who must jump through costly hoops to toss someone out.

In September I'm moving out for first time. I'm 38 year old and it was the other way round for me. Ive been wanting to move out for some time but my parents that didn't want me to. They no that I need help and asked them but they said no your not going and gave me every excuse under the sun. I felt trapped until a couple of weeks ago I just told them with or with out your help I will be moving out on my own so will you or wont you help me. I am asking for your help. After that they agreed to help and now found my place and moving out in September. Not moving until then because where I'm renting the people are still there and that's when it be free.

No one should have to help you move out.

Landlords kick people out all the time. Plenty of people get evicted for non-payment of rent. Even though being a tenant doesn't require payment of rent, I'm not aware of any state in which landlords are automatically required to let tenants keep living there rent-free forever just because they've already lived there for a while. Anyway, after reading the article again it looks like the only reason it's taking so long is because they're only now going through legal proceedings. It looks like before they've simply been asking him to leave (which obviously isn't enough for an eviction).

Are you saying that it takes 6 months in New York because that's typically how long it takes for the legal proceedings to go through the courts? Or are you saying that tenants have to be given 6 months notice? How long after losing in court do evicted tenants have to leave?

I know that tenants can drag things out by fighting an eviction, but 6 months sounds excessive as hell.

Also, why exactly is this even a story? Because I don't see anything here other than "man is being evicted", and people get evicted all the time.

It is important legally. When it goes to court, stuff like whether he's paying rent, whether or not there's a contractual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, make a difference as to whether or not the person's actually violating the terms of his residence. Not paying rent doesn't automatically make him a non-tenant and that certainly doesn't mean he can be kicked out immediately, but these definitely matter when it comes to how quickly this stuff goes through the courts and whether or not the tenants are actually successful in fighting the eviction.

I'm betting that this kind of family stuff tends to be more complicated. I'm wagering that with family members, people are more likely to enter into these kinds of housing arrangements without involving any kind of clear contracts.

The family sounds dysfunctional and they shouldn't have gotten a son in the first place if they can't even raise one properly.

I understand the adultolescence phenomenon, but never paying rent? Damn. Starting to wonder if living with your parents is a societal problem or an economic one.

Anyone else think of this guy?

I still live with my parents. But all the bills are coming out of my pocket tho.

It's true that landlords kick people out all the time, but the methods they use to do so are legally dubious. Often what they do is issue eviction notices to tenants whom they know will not show up to court. If they do, the landlords usually have a lawyer and the tenants do not. Given that these are not landlords with a lawyer but merely parents, they run into the same problem that tenants usually do in not being able to pay to game the legal process. This also varies depending not only on the state but also the city or town one resides in. And usually the best way to argue for an eviction that bypasses the typical 30 day notice requirement is to argue non-payment of rent. Given that this person was not paying rent and had no written or even unwritten agreement, they can't argue for non-payment of rent.

You're right that the family stuff gets complicated. In my experience, one side typically has an idea in their head of what the arrangement is and the other side has a completely different idea. Since there's no written agreement, it has to be hashed out with a third party i.e. in court. It also looks like New York needs approval from a state supreme court justice to remove a family member, which was probably a safeguard against someone throwing out a dependent spouse or disabled family member. Doesn't mean he won't eventually be evicted, just that it has to go through a lengthy process before he is to ensure he's not part of a class that said law was meant to protect.

Son is most definitely in the wrong here. I moved out when I was 26.

At some point I have to grow up at some point and start making it out on my own.

Well, court has decided he has to leave so that's that...

The d-bag says he's going to appeal. He also represented himself, of course.

@korvus: I listened to him speak his piece on the radio yesterday. He sounds like a flake.

@loco145: I am amazed that they have to sue to get rid of a moocher like their son.

Which at 30 should have his own life and job and of course like all adults pay for his own way in life.

But they are clearly in the right and poor them for having a sick son like that.

Somehow I'm not surprised...

He doesn't have money for a lawyer? Shocker.

-Byshop

@Byshop: "Why pay for something when you can get it for free?" is probably his life motto anyway.

Had to add this, because the clip features footage from his court appearance. This guy is a total asshat.

He knows he is going to lose, I just read that he is asking for 3 months (which is already had) to get a job and find a place. But seriously at 30 he should have his life together and have his own house, but I'm also going to blame the parents in the fact that they did something when raising him to make him turn out like this. My older brother is a drugy (sorta parents fault and his, who has lost himself to ice) still living with my parents he is 30 my dad has wanted to kick him out for the last 5 years but mum keeps saying no. He could easy make a living on art which is has gotten paid for before (he's done album covers). My father saw how he was turning out and as soon as I got a serious misses (18) he packed all my stuff up and I told me to get out (not in a mean way I still could of lived there but my misses was more than happy for me to move in with her and I was staying there everyday for the past 2 months anyway), So I did. That was 6 years ago now.

@LJS9502_basic: I didn't say should help. I asked them to as they didn't want me to move out but I need to as need my own space. They was giving me every excuse they could so I wouldn't move out. In the end I asked them if they would help me or not as I will be getting my own place as I do need my own space. Either way if they said no I would have done it my self but would prefer the help. September 15th I'm moving into an apartment it taking so long as the people there are still renting till then.

Wow...this piece of work gets better and better.

According to Business Insider, he hasn't worked because he wanted to concentrate on being a better father to his son.

Thing is, he had already lost visitation rights to see him.

I'm sorry but this guy just seems like a lazy, self-entitled douche.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-30-year-old-millennial-ordered-to-vacate-parents-house-has-no-career-2018-5

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/24/michael-rotondo-30-evicted-parents-explains-why-he-has-no-job/639948002/

Everything about that man screams LOSER.

This guy is such a tool.