Daunt v Daunt - [2013] VSC 706

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

S CI 2012 07213

STEPHEN LEWIS DAUNT	Plaintiff
v
MICHAEL TELFORD DAUNT	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	DALY AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 August, 16 September 2013, further written submissions on 30 September 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Daunt v Daunt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 706

---

JUDGMENT

---

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST — Transfer of land from parent to adult child — Standing of disappointed contingent beneficiary — Fiduciary duty — Undue influence — Unconscionable conduct.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr G. Moore	Mr P. Maginn

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Mr Stephen Daunt, and the defendant, Mr Michael Daunt, are brothers. The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff on 28 December 2012 reads as follows:

I wish to bring a complaint against my twin brother, Michael Daunt, with regard to his fiduciary relationship with our parents.
He has breached fiduciary by unjust self enrichment.
He achieved unjust enrichment by placing himself in: a position of conflict of interest, a position of conflict of duty and a position of profit at the expense of his co‑beneficiaries and to the detriment of family relations.
In particular,
(1)he has made himself sole successor in title to our parents’ land whilst acting as fiduciary for them;
(2)he has made himself sole beneficiary to the remainder of their estate while asserting an enduring power of attorney;
(3)he has knowingly and intentionally contravened section 125B(b) of the Instruments Act 1958; and
(4)he has used this statute for the fraudulent purpose of transactions to defeat the claims of his co-beneficiaries.

I now request from the Court:
(1)       an order for declaration of constructive trust;
(2)       an order for account of profits; and
(3)       an order for continuation of caveat.

The reference to a caveat above is in respect of a caveat lodged by the plaintiff over the title to the property at 95 Junction Road, Heathcote Junction (“Wandong property”). This proceeding was issued after the defendant made an application to Land Victoria under s 89A of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) (“TLA”) for the removal of the caveat. The proceeding was issued within the time period specified by s 89A(3) of the TLA.

The transaction which is the subject of the plaintiff’s complaint is as follows: on 16 June 2010, the parties’ parents, Mrs Valerie Daunt (“Mrs Daunt”) and Mr Edward Daunt (“Mr Daunt senior”) executed a transfer of land in favour of the defendant and Mr Daunt senior (“Transfer of Land”). The consideration for the transfer was described as “I desire to make a gift”. The Transfer of Land includes a notation under the names of the transferees “Joint Property Ownership”. The signatures of Mrs Daunt, Mr Daunt senior, and the defendant on the Transfer of Land were witnessed by Ms Joy Lorraine Carbone, who is described in an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Daunt v Daunt

Details

AGLC: Daunt v Daunt [2013] VSC 706
Case: [2013] VSC 706
Decision Date: 18 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daunt v Daunt involved a dispute between siblings over a transfer of land from their mother to one of them. The siblings had been beneficiaries of their mother's estate, with each expecting to receive an equal share of the property. However, the mother transferred the land to one of the children, causing dissatisfaction among the other siblings. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the transfer and the appropriate remedy for the disappointed beneficiaries.

The central legal issues in the case centred on whether the transfer of the land constituted an undue influence, whether a constructive trust should be imposed, and whether the transferee had breached a fiduciary duty. Additionally, the court had to consider the standing of the disappointed beneficiaries to challenge the transfer and whether the conduct of the parties involved was unconscionable.

The court found that the transfer of the land from the mother to the favoured child was indeed influenced by undue pressure exerted by the child. The court determined that a constructive trust should be imposed on the land to rectify the unjust enrichment of the transferee and to ensure equitable distribution among all beneficiaries. Furthermore, the court held that the transferee had breached a fiduciary duty owed to the other beneficiaries. The court also found that the disappointed beneficiaries had standing to challenge the transfer, as they were intended beneficiaries of the estate. Based on these findings, the court ordered that the land be held on constructive trust for all the beneficiaries equally.

The final orders of the court mandated that the land be conveyed to a trustee for the benefit of all the siblings, ensuring an equitable distribution of the estate. The court also directed that the transferee compensate the estate for any financial advantage gained from the transfer. The decision emphasised the importance of fiduciary duties and the need to protect the rights of intended beneficiaries in estate planning and transfers.

Orders