Hypotheticals by Manny Wood. Published in the Coffs Coast Advocate on 28 May 2016.
This week’s column looks at the extent to which promises regarding property can be enforced.
Jane arrived in Australia 45 years ago and entered into an arranged marriage with John. They lived with John’s parents and brought up two children in the same household.
When John’s parents move into a nursing home, John seeks a divorce from Jane and asks her to vacate the property, with a view to sell.
Jane lodges a caveat to prevent the sale and files a court application seeking a declaration that she is entitled to half the property.
Jane claims that John’s parents promised that if she contributed to the household expenses and looked after them, that they would leave the house to both John and Jane under their Wills.
Jane says that she performed household duties, paid household bills and nursed John’s parents during years of ill-health with the knowledge that she would one day inherit the house. She claims that it would be unconscionable for the promise to now be reneged.
At the hearing, John denies that Jane made the alleged contributions. The court however preferred Jane’s evidence and found that in circumstances where John had “led a dissolute life, drinking and gambling” it was unlikely that he would have volunteered around the house and much more likely that Jane attended to the household duties.
The court accepted Jane’s testimony that on many occasions John’s parents said words to the effect “this is for you”. The court also accepted that Jane contributed almost all of her income as a seamstress, to buy food and pay the household’s outgoings.
The court found that Jane had successfully showed that she had reasonably relied upon an expectation that she would obtain an interest in the property and in circumstances where she had suffered detriment, it would be unconscionable to disappoint the expectation.
The court ultimately ordered that upon the death of John’s parents, Jane is entitled to half of the property.
