| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST
S ECI 2020 02527
| VICTORIA ELIZABETH GIANCHINO & ANOR (in their capacity as executors of the estate of SUSAN MARTHA GIANCHINO deceased) | Plaintiffs |
| v | |
| ANGELO GIANCHINO | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Derham AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 25 May 2021 (Written Submissions to 16 June 2021) |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 29 June 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Gianchino & Anor v Gianchino |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 383 |
---
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — Adverse possession between co-owners —Limitation of Actions Act 1958 ss 3(1), 8, 9, 14(1), 14(4), 18; JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419 — Whittlesea City Council v Abbatangelo (2009) VSCA 188; Fourniotis v Vallianatos [2018] VSC 369 referred to.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiffs | Mr W Rimmer | Wisewould Mahony |
| For the Defendant | Mr L Virgona | Sullivan Braham Pty Ltd |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
Claim and defence/counterclaim.................................................................................................... 1
Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of conclusions.................................................................................................................. 5
Matters in dispute.............................................................................................................................. 5
The facts............................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 8
Early years...................................................................................................................................... 9
Retrenchment............................................................................................................................... 10
Relationship between Sue and Angelo.................................................................................... 16
Departure for Queensland......................................................................................................... 20
Events after departure................................................................................................................ 22
The first lock change................................................................................................................... 24
Ben’s visit to Toowoomba.......................................................................................................... 26
Email exchange in October 2004............................................................................................... 26
Angelo’s change of jobs.............................................................................................................. 29
No Christmas at home................................................................................................................ 29
Angelo reduces the mortgage payments................................................................................. 30
Shipping Angelo’s belongings.................................................................................................. 31
Angelo’s visit in September 2005.............................................................................................. 34
Changing the locks after the visit in 2005................................................................................ 39
Emails after September 2005...................................................................................................... 40
Financial arrangements.............................................................................................................. 41
Other material facts..................................................................................................................... 43
Applicable law.................................................................................................................................. 46
Plaintiffs’ interpretation of s 14(4)............................................................................................ 51
Defendant’s interpretation of s 14(4)........................................................................................ 55
Analysis of the interpretation of s 14(4)................................................................................... 58
Aggregation................................................................................................................................. 61
Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 61
First question............................................................................................................................... 61
Second question........................................................................................................................... 66
Third questions............................................................................................................................ 68
Fourth question........................................................................................................................... 69
Fifth question............................................................................................................................... 71
Sixth questions............................................................................................................................. 72
Seventh question......................................................................................................................... 73
Consent......................................................................................................................................... 75
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 76
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
The plaintiffs, Victoria Elizabeth Gianchino (‘Vicki’) and Ben Paul Gianchino (‘Ben’) are the children of Susan Martha Gianchino (‘Sue’), who died on 11 February 2019, and the defendant (‘Angelo’). The plaintiffs are the executors of Sue’s estate.
In September 1983, Sue and Angelo were registered as joint proprietors of the fee simple estate in the property known as 19 Cairo Road, Mont Albert North (‘Property’).[1] On 29 July 2019, after Sue died, Angelo became registered as sole proprietor of the Property by right of survivorship.
[1]The land described in Certificate of Title Volume 7736 Folio 188. It is sometimes called Box Hill North, particularly by Angelo.
The plaintiffs claim that they, in their own right, have acquired title to the Property by way of adverse possession, relying on s 14(4), or alternatively s 14(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) (LAA). In the event that the plaintiffs’ claim for a possessory title is denied, the plaintiffs bring an alternative claim for a charge over the Property in respect of amounts paid by…
Continue reading Gianchino v Gianchino
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gianchino v Gianchino [2021] VSC 383
- Case
- [2021] VSC 383
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the principles for determining limitation periods in cases of adverse possession between co-owners were established in Whittlesea City Council v Abbatangelo and further developed in Fourniotis v Vallianatos. The court noted that the statutory provisions in the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 applied to claims for adverse possession, and the respondent was required to prove that the limitation period had expired. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act, including sections 3(1), 8, 9, 14(1), 14(4), and 18. The court also referred to the principles established in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham, which held that the limitation period for adverse possession runs from the date that the paper title holder becomes aware of the adverse possession.
The court held that the respondent had failed to establish that the limitation period had expired, as he had not demonstrated that he became aware of the adverse possession by the applicant within the relevant period. The court found that the respondent’s claim for adverse possession was therefore barred by the limitation period under the Act. The court dismissed the respondent’s application for an order that title to the land be vested in him.
The court ordered that the respondent’s application be dismissed with costs. The court found that the applicant was entitled to costs on the standard basis. The court noted that the respondent had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would warrant an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The court also noted that the applicant had been forced to defend the respondent’s claim, which had caused her significant inconvenience and expense.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.