This isn't particularly surprising - it's only really 'newsworthy' due to the nature of what was thrown out. I'm not bothering to look up the law in the state where this happened, but I'm assuming it's much the same as Florida (where I am)... i.e., highly protective of tenant rights. There are specific procedures (
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0715/Sections/0715.104.html) that must be followed with respect to tossing or selling tenant property after the tenant moves out (unless you have a written lease agreement that says you can just throw the stuff away (
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0000-0099/0083/Sections/0083.67.html). They didn't follow that procedure.
What I'm curious about is whether this guy was actually a "tenant" meaning that he was obligated to pay rent. If they weren't charging rent, he wouldn't be a tenant under Florida law but a house guest. It's too early in the morning for me to figure out whether the landlord/tenant rules still apply regarding throwing a guest's stuff away rather than a tenant's stuff.
I don't fully understand the article saying it's the parents' responsibility to figure out the value of what was thrown out. The son was the plaintiff. It was his job to establish value, and I don't see how he could do that absent some expert testimony which I suspect was not provided. That the son thought his collection to be priceless is irrelevant - the question is what was the fair market value of his collection at the time of disposal, and I seriously doubt the son was qualified to provide that testimony.