Get out! Judge sides with parents trying to evict their unemployed 30-year-old son

The couple have been trying to evict their unemployed only-son Michael for months because he refuses to pay rent or contribute in any way around the house. Photo / CNY

A New York judge has ordered a 30-year-old man to move out of his parents' home - after the couple tried and failed for months to get their deadbeat son to fly the coop.

At a Tuesday hearing, which lasted about 30 minutes, New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood sided with Mark and Christina Rotondo of Camillus, New York.

The couple have been trying to evict their unemployed only-son Michael for months because he refuses to pay rent or contribute in any way around the house.

The Rotondos' home in Camillus, New York, where Michael has been refusing to move out of. Photo / Google

Michael argued in court yesterday that legal precedent allowed him six months notice before his parents could kick him out. The judge pointed out another case that nullified that previous decision, and called six months an "outrageous" amount of time to ask for. Michael responded that it was "outrageous" to evict him.

He left court frustrated, refusing to speak to his parents and saying he didn't think the judge read the case fully, according to CNY Central. He says he will appeal the decision.

"I am just so outraged," he said outside of court, adding that he has been taunted by conservative groups for being a "liberal millennial".

He also said his parents don't provide food or do his laundry for him.

Michael Rotondo during an eviction proceeding in Syracuse brought by his parents, Mark and Christina, of Camillus. The two parents confer with their lawyer, Anthony Adorante on the right. Photo / AP

The judge tried to convince Michael to come to an agreement with his parents on his own, but when he refused, he ordered him out of the house.

He also ordered adult protective services to investigate.

Greenwood asked the couple to come up with an eviction order that he would sign. It was not decided in court how long Michael would be given to move out.

But since he plans to appeal, he'll likely be able to stay in the home until the appeal is decided anyway. The couple's lawyer said he;d like to get an eviction notice that would be enforceable by the sheriff.

It's unclear if Michael has ever lived outside of his home. Public records connect him to two other Syracuse-area homes, where he is said to have lived between 2008 and 2010, when he would have been 21 to 23 years old.

His parents home is owned by his mother, who bought it in 1988.

Over the past three months, the Rotondos have given their son five written notices to move out, but he has ignored their orders.

They initially tried to get him evicted, but learned that since he is a family member, he would have to be removed from their home through an ejectment proceeding.

The first letter sent to Michael Rotondo by his parents.

In a response to his parents' court filings, Michael - who turns 31 in July and is acting as his own lawyer - says his parents have not given him a reason why he is being kicked out, or enough time to find a new place.

He claims in his response that in the eight years he has lived with his parents, 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".

Letter 2 from Rotondo's parents in their attempt to evict him from their house.

He also cited a court precedent which says that he needs six-months notice to be kicked out through an ejectment action.

In a redacted filing, Michael also said he runs his own "successful" business, calling it "the overwhelmingly superior choice for the economic well being over the working of a full-time job".

The Rotondos first asked their son to leave in a letter written on February 2

His father wrote that "after a discussion with your Mother, we have decided that you must leave this house immediately". They gave him 14 days to vacate, saying he "will not be allowed to return".

Letter three, and his parents offer him money and help to find his own place.

When he had not moved out two weeks later, his parents followed up with another letter, telling him he had been "evicted".

"You have heretofore been our guest and there is no lease or agreement that gives you any right to stay here without our consent," they wrote.

They then gave up another 30 days to leave.

The couple wrote a third letter five days later, offering Michael US$1100 to find a new place to stay and some advice on how to get a new apartment - such as selling "any weapons you may have" for rent money.

"There are jobs available even for those with a poor work history like you. Get one - you have to work!

"If you want help finding a place your Mother has offered to help you," the letter reads.

Michael's parents threaten to take any appropriate actions to make sure he leaves their house by the time letter four is written.

On March 5, the couple wrote a fourth letter saying they "have seen no indication that you are preparing to leave".

"Be aware that we will take any appropriate actions necessary to make sure you leave the house as demanded," they wrote.

Their most recent letter was written on March 30, concerns Michael's car, offering him money to fix it so that it can be taken off their property.

Not only does their son refuse to leave their house, from letter five it appears he's also been storing an undriveable car at the property.

"I feel bad for both of them, because he's not learning anything by staying at home and he's just wasting their time and money," one neighbour said, according to WRAL.

Michael appears to be no stranger of the civil court system.

Last year, he filed a lawsuit against a local Best Buy for discrimination, saying he was fired because he couldn't work Saturdays due to a court visitation schedule.

He is seeking nearly US$340,000 in damages, pay and attorney's fees from the big box store.

In a separate case, he claimed his rights to due process were violated in family court, but that case was thrown out in November of last year.