Erickson v Stevens

[2000] QDC 253

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Erickson v. Stevens [2000] QDC 253

PARTIES:

DAVID WILLIAM ERICKSON (Plaintiff)
v.
SAMANTHA NAOMI STEVENS (Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Plaint 100 of 1998

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 August 2000

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Declaration that the defendant holds her legal interest in the property situated at 30 Sea Eagles Road, Booral, being Lot 30 on Registered Plan 130932, County of March, Parish of Urangan, the land contained in title reference volume 4656 folio 230, on trust for the plaintiff to the extent that the value of her interest exceeds $15,000.

CATCHWORDS:

TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – constructive trusts – former de facto couple – jointly owned property – short relationship – disparity of contributions – whether and how imposed

TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – resulting trusts – former de facto couple – jointly owned property – acquisition paid for by one – whether presumption rebutted 

Biviano v. Natoli (1998) 43 NSWLR 695 - considered
Forgeard v. Shanahan (1994) 35 NSWLR 206 – followed
Stone v. Owen [2000] QCA 56 – followed
Calverley v. Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 – followed
Muschinski v. Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 - followed
Marcucci v. Burnes (1985) DFC #95-003 – followed
Wirth v. Wirth (1956) 98 CLR 228 – considered
Dunne v. Turner (Queensland Court of Appeal, 20.8.98, unreported) – followed
Baumgartner v. Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137 – considered
Jenkins v. Wynen [1992] 1 Qd.R. 40 – cited

COUNSEL:

M.A. Fellows for plaintiff
W.G. Everson for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Roberts Nehmer McKee for plaintiff
Morton and Morton for defendant

1. The plaintiff and defendant are registered as proprietors as joint tenants of an estate in fee simple in a parcel of land at Hervey Bay on which is constructed a house.  It was acquired under a contract to them both as buyers which is undated but was due to settle on 6 June 1997: Exhibit 1.  The whole of the purchase price was provided by the plaintiff.  The value of the property is less than the jurisdictional limit: Exhibit 7.  The plaintiff claims a declaration that the defendant holds her interest in that property on a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff, and consequential relief.  By counterclaim the defendant seeks a declaration as to her beneficial interest in the property.

History of the Relationship

1. The parties formerly lived in a de facto relationship, during two separate periods.  They lived together during the period 1990 to 1994, in Townsville, in rented accommodation: p.5, 38.  I accept that during this period they shared such resources as they had, either from employment or social security payments (p.16);  the plaintiff was in employment more than the defendant, although this is partly explained by the fact that during this period the defendant bore two children.  No jointly owned assets were acquired during this period.

1. In 1993 the plaintiff was injured at work as a result of which he suffered some injury to…