Mark and Christina Rotondo have been trying for months to get their son, Michael, to leave their home. Michael doesn’t have a lease with the parents, nor does he pay any of the bills. They have gone so far as to offer him money to leave the premises and have finally had to take him to court.
[Scroll Down For Video]
After months of trying to get their 30-year-old son to head out into the world on his own, Mark and Christina were finally successful when, according to the Daily Mail, New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood sided with the parents on the matter of kicking their son out of their home.
Michael is currently unemployed as he waits for a verdict in another civil case where he is suing his former employer Best Buy for discrimination and asking for damages of $340,000. He claims he was fired because he couldn’t work on Saturdays due, in part, to a court visitation schedule.
Mark and Christina tried to get their son to leave on his own accord. Starting in February 2018, Michael’s parents sent him letters giving him 14 days to move out of the home. After the 14 days came and went, the couple sent their son another letter telling that he was evicted from the premises.
Again, the middle-aged man refused to leave the property or contribute in any way to the household. In their third attempt to get their son to leave the nest, Michael was given $1,100 to find a place, which his mother said was offered to help him with moving expenses.
In March, Michael received another letter from his parents giving him some pointers on making it in the world such as getting a job, selling anything valuable to get started and getting his car fixed to get to and from work.
Finally, after months of trying to get their son out of the home, Michael was ordered to leave the resident by a Supreme Court Judge. “I am just so outraged,” Michael said following the verdict.
Michael acted as his own lawyer and argued that 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.”
Michael plans to file an appeal.