Donis v Donis

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7524 of 2001

SUSIE DONIS	Plaintiff
v
VICTOR DONIS & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Hansen J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 March, 1, 4-8 April, 2-4 May 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 September 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Donis v Donis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 365

---

Equity – Estoppel – Promise to transfer interest in land on marriage – Reliance – Detriment - Relief

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R J Spicer	Pearce Webster Dugdales
For the Defendants	Mr P R Hayes Q.C. and Mr N Dragojlovic to 8 April 2005, then Mr P C Golombek and Mr N Dragojlovic	Victor C Andreou

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background concerning the parties and their families............................................................... 2

The Mernda Property........................................................................................................................ 5

Description................................................................................................................................. 5
Purchase of property................................................................................................................... 7
Use of the property...................................................................................................................... 8
Sale of the property..................................................................................................................... 9

Pleadings.............................................................................................................................................. 9

Statement of claim...................................................................................................................... 9
Defence and counterclaim........................................................................................................ 12
Reply and Defence to Counterclaim......................................................................................... 14

The trial.............................................................................................................................................. 14

Chronology........................................................................................................................................ 16

Evidence............................................................................................................................................. 20

Susie......................................................................................................................................... 21
Valentina.................................................................................................................................. 35
Vesna........................................................................................................................................ 48
Nikola....................................................................................................................................... 57
Nadezda.................................................................................................................................... 64
Defendants’ Evidence – Introduction....................................................................................... 69
Steven....................................................................................................................................... 70
Victor....................................................................................................................................... 79
Rosa.......................................................................................................................................... 83

Observations and findings on witnesses..................................................................................... 85

Steven..................................................................................................................................... 104
Victor..................................................................................................................................... 107
Rosa........................................................................................................................................ 117
Defendants’ witnesses............................................................................................................. 120
Senior Sergeant Horton.......................................................................................................... 120
Sotir Georgievski.................................................................................................................... 121
Jim Donis................................................................................................................................ 121
Jim Panovski........................................................................................................................... 123
George Donis.......................................................................................................................... 125
Mary Donis............................................................................................................................ 127
Michael Donis........................................................................................................................ 130

Contributions to the property...................................................................................................... 131

Decision............................................................................................................................................ 135

Relief................................................................................................................................................. 140

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Susie Stojanovska and Steven Victor Donis married on 16 February 1997 with every expectation of a happy future together, that expectation doubtless enhanced by her early pregnancy and the birth of their child Jamie Steven Donis on 10 November 1997. However, happiness eluded them and their differences became such that they separated in January 2000. Until then they lived at a house at 1575 Plenty Road, Mernda situated on a 40 acre rural property which Steven’s parents, Victor and Rosa Donis, purchased in 1995 and of which the parents were registered proprietors. There was a second, and older, house on the property the address of that house being 1565 Plenty Road. The question in this case is whether, as in essence Susie alleges, Victor, Rosa and Steven promised her that when she married Steven she would be made an owner with him of one half of the property, a promise which was repeated following the marriage, and that in reliance thereon she (and Steven) made financial and non-financial contributions to the house and its surrounds at 1575 Plenty Road. On that basis she claims to be entitled in equity to a one-quarter interest as tenant in common with Victor, Rosa and Steven in the whole 40 acre property. As, however, Victor and Rosa sold the property on 10 October 2002 she seeks, in addition to a declaration as to her right, an order for payment of the sum which represents the value of her interest or, alternatively, the amount…

In the Family Court of Australia, Donis v Donis involved a dispute between the parties regarding the ownership of a property. The matter was brought by the wife, who sought to enforce a promise made by the husband to transfer his interest in the property to her upon their marriage. The wife alleged that she had relied on this promise to her detriment and sought equitable relief in the form of the transfer of the husband's interest in the property. The husband contested the claim, asserting that no binding promise had been made and that the wife had not suffered any detriment as a result of her reliance.

The legal issues before the court included whether a binding promise had been made by the husband to the wife regarding the transfer of his interest in the property, and if so, whether the wife had relied on this promise to her detriment. The court had to determine if the wife was entitled to equitable relief in the form of the transfer of the husband's interest in the property, and if so, what form that relief should take. The court also had to consider the relevant principles of estoppel and whether they applied in this case.

The court found that a promise had been made by the husband to the wife regarding the transfer of his interest in the property, and that the wife had relied on this promise to her detriment. The court held that the wife was entitled to equitable relief in the form of the transfer of the husband's interest in the property. The court considered the principles of estoppel and found that they applied in this case, as the husband had led the wife to believe that he would transfer his interest in the property to her, and she had relied on this belief to her detriment. The court ordered that the husband's interest in the property be transferred to the wife, and that the husband pay the wife's costs of the proceedings.

Continue reading Donis v Donis

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established