= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)
...that was EXACTLY the post title I had in mind.
.
Hoot will need to copy the OP for the setup...and he may want to do it quickly, before it becomes...unavailable. 
Squeeeee!
Response to blm (Reply #9)
?w=375&h=200
The murdering part is ok but the THIEF part... unacceptable! How DARE his wife do that to him. 
it is considered by the police to be a "landlord/tenant" dispute to be handled in a local (district) court.
I once had a tenant "steal" a riding lawn mower (apparently it was given to someone in exchange for drugs), and the police *would not* take a report on it because of this situation. I was told to "sue him" (despite the fact the druggie had nothing, and I needed the lawn mower).
George was asked to leave the home; because he had "rights" to stay as a tenant (meaning he had been contributing some form of rent or even if he didn't), they had to give him 30 days notice and treat him like a "legal tenant" instead of a house guest, with "proper" eviction procedures being followed.
Their daughter ended up leaving their home for her safety while he stayed. That tells you *a lot* about the type of person he is because instead of staying with HIS family (who apparently didn't want him), he took advantage of hers, despite the fact there was obviously tension due to the upcoming divorce. Undoubtedly he used some of the furniture, and undoubtedly he took stuff the family considered either theirs or their daughters. Rather than get involved in a fight about this ("that is my chair! my bed! my dresser!" / "no its mine!"
, the police sent them to "landlord/tenant" court if they want it back, or the divorce court for property division, or the ever happy option of just shutting up if they are grateful he is gone / he can have the bed and the dresser and whatever else he felt was "his" as long as he stays away and good riddance to bad rubbish, etc.
To summarize: he should have left with what he came with, and he should have done it immediately when he made his in-laws home uncomfortable for them with his presence. That would have been the decent thing to do, but he has never been known to be a decent person, so duh! He did what was easiest for him.
There is an old saying: lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. They were foolish, and let him into their home. Now they are paying the price in public humiliation, financial distress, and emotional misery from him being there/their daughter not being 'safe' in their home.
Personally, I say they should count their blessings - she didn't have any children with him, so they won't have to deal with him anymore once the divorce is final.
Assuming he doesn't kill them or their daughter, of course. And with this loose cannon, the odds are good someone is going to end up dead before the divorce is over.
petty theft. It just isn't done!! 
Response to treestar (Reply #28)
Enjoy your stay, again!
