Hayes v Hayes

Case [2015] QSC 88

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hayes v Hayes [2015] QSC 88

PARTIES:

RICHARD NEIL HAYES

(Plaintiff)

v
SUSAN WENDA HAYES as Executor of the Estate of the late ERNEST HAYES

(First Defendant)
SUSAN WENDA HAYES
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

No 12260 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

21 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2015

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDERS:

1.   The plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed.

2.   I shall hear the parties as to the form of orders and costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES – ASSETS – whether, at the date of his death, the deceased had an interest in property – whether the deceased and his wife had advanced monies to their daughter by way of gift as part of a joint venture such that the deceased did not have an equitable interest in the property – whether the deceased and his wife had advanced monies to their daughter by way of loan such that the deceased had an equitable interest in the property

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
G J Robinson for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
Peter Chappel Solicitors for the Defendants

  1. The plaintiff claims provision out of the estate of his late father, pursuant to s 41 of the Succession Act 1981. He also seeks a declaration that at the date of his father’s death, his father had an interest in real property being the whole or part of land situated at Chuwar in the State of Queensland (“the property”). The second defendant is the plaintiff’s sister and the registered proprietor of the property. She is sued both in her capacity as executor of her father’s estate, and in her personal capacity.

  2. On 19 December 2014, pursuant to r 483 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 it was ordered there be a separate trial of the plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief. The present hearing is the determination of that issue.

  3. The plaintiff’s parents contributed significant sums of money towards the building of a house on the property.  At issue is whether those monies were advanced by way of gift, on the common understanding the second defendant would care for her parents at the property for the rest of their lives, or constituted loans such that the plaintiff’s late father had an equitable interest in the property at the time of his death.

    Background

  4. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the only children of the late Ernest Hayes (“the deceased”), who died on 23 March 2013.  They are twins, having been born on 29 August 1955 in England.  They emigrated to Australia with their parents in around 1964.  Their mother died in early 2013.

  5. In about 1967, the deceased and his late wife purchased a house in Bardon.  It remained the family home until it was sold in 1985.  The parents used part of the proceeds from its sale to meet…

Continue reading Hayes v Hayes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hayes v Hayes [2015] QSC 88
Case
[2015] QSC 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hayes v Hayes, the plaintiff, who is the son of the deceased, sought declaratory relief that his late father held an equitable interest in a property at the time of his death. The deceased, Ernest Hayes, had contributed funds towards the construction of a house on the property. The central issue was whether these funds were advanced as a gift or as a loan to the second defendant, who is the plaintiff's sister. The court had to determine whether the deceased retained an equitable interest in the property at the time of his death.

The court examined the relationship between the parties, including the contributions made by the deceased and his wife towards the construction of the house. It considered the circumstances under which the contributions were made, including the agreement that the second defendant would care for her parents for the rest of their lives in exchange for contributing to the construction. The court assessed whether these contributions were intended as gifts or loans. In making its decision, the court applied principles of equity, focusing on the intentions of the parties and the nature of their agreement.

After considering the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the court concluded that the monies paid by the deceased and his wife were advanced to the second defendant by way of gift, not as a loan. Consequently, the deceased did not hold an equitable interest in the property at the time of his death. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief and indicated it would hear the parties regarding the form of orders and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed.

2. I shall hear the parties as to the form of orders and costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

The plaintiff’s parents contributed significant sums of money towards the building of a house on the property. At issue is whether those monies were advanced by way of gift, on the common understanding the second defendant would care for her parents at the property for the rest of their lives, or constituted loans such that the plaintiff’s late father had an equitable interest in the property at the time of his death.Background The plaintiff and the second defendant are the only children of the late Ernest Hayes (“the deceased”), who died on 23 March 2013. They are twins, having been born on 29 August 1955 in England. They emigrated to Australia with their parents in around 1964. Their mother died in early 2013. In about 1967, the deceased and his late wife purchased a house in Bardon. It remained the family home until it was sold in 1985. The parents used part of the proceeds from its sale to meet an outstanding sum owed by the plaintiff as a consequence of a failed business venture, which his parents had guaranteed. The balance was used to fund in part the construction of a house on the property. In May 1984, the second defendant had purchased the property, then vacant land, in her own name. The balance of the building cost of the house was met by the second defendant, who borrowed approximately $40,000.00 from her bank using the property as security. The second defendant also used the proceeds of the sale of her caravan towards building the house. The plaintiff’s parents lived with the second defendant at the property, in the house constructed on the property in 1985, until their deaths within months of each other in 2013. As their health deteriorated, the second defendant cared for them at home. In the case of her mother, this arrangement lasted until her death. In the case of the father, his health deteriorated to a point where he required admission to an aged care facility. It is not disputed the defendant thereafter continued to regularly assist her father in relation to his needs until his death. It was common ground between the parties that the house on the property was built on the basis it would be occupied by both the second defendant and their parents. However, the plaintiff gave evidence it was two complete, separate dwellings, which allowed his parents to live independently. The second defendant accepted the house was designed in that way but said from the time her parents moved in, all three of them lived as if they were in one residence.Evidence The plaintiff commenced his working life in about 1970, after leaving school at the age of 15. Initially, he lived at the family home in Bardon. During this period, he paid board and undertook renovation projects on the family home in conjunction with his father. The second defendant attended Teachers Training College for three years after completing Grade 12. After graduating in 1976, she was posted to various schools in and around Brisbane. On some postings she was only in Brisbane for weekends. During this period, when she was in Brisbane, she resided at the family home.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

It was common ground between the parties that the house on the property was built on the basis it would be occupied by both the second defendant and their parents. However, the plaintiff gave evidence it was two complete, separate dwellings, which allowed his parents to live independently. The second defendant accepted the house was designed in that way but said from the time her parents moved in, all three of them lived as if they were in one residence.Evidence The plaintiff commenced his working life in about 1970, after leaving school at the age of 15. Initially, he lived at the family home in Bardon. During this period, he paid board and undertook renovation projects on the family home in conjunction with his father. The second defendant attended Teachers Training College for three years after completing Grade 12. After graduating in 1976, she was posted to various schools in and around Brisbane. On some postings she was only in Brisbane for weekends. During this period, when she was in Brisbane, she resided at the family home. In 1980, the second defendant undertook further educational studies. When she returned to full-time teaching she was posted to Mt Isa. Her parents purchased a second-hand caravan for her to reside in at Mt Isa. In 1982, the second defendant purchased a new caravan. Part of the purchase price was met by trading in the caravan provided by her parents. The second defendant met the balance of the purchase price. In about 1982, the plaintiff commenced working part-time for a boat builder. He was also working as a film cameraman and technician. He subsequently entered into a business venture with the boat builder. The agreement was formalised in writing, and business registration was obtained, as was finance. The plaintiff’s parents guaranteed a business loan, supported by a mortgage on the family home. The business venture failed around 1984, and the plaintiff was left with substantial debts. As a consequence, he was unable to meet the loan guaranteed by the parents. The parents paid out that loan, in the sum of about $11,000.00. The plaintiff said that payment was made prior to the sale of the family home. The second defendant said it was met by the parents obtaining a bridging loan, the funds from which were also used to commence building the house on the property. The second defendant said the bridging loan was repaid when their parents sold the family home. In 1984, the second defendant was transferred back to Brisbane. She resumed living with her parents at the family home in Bardon. Her parents offered to allow her to build a flat under the family home. However, the second defendant considered the site unsuitable. Instead, she purchased the property. The second defendant paid the total purchase price from her own monies. Whilst the property was purchased by the second defendant, the second defendant said she had agreed with her parents that they would live with her in a house to be built on the land. The parents agreed to contribute to part of construction of the house, on the basis the second defendant would look after them for the rest of their lives. The second defendant said this arrangement was on the basis the house would be “her house”.[1] [1] T1-31/5.

Decision

Reasons for decision

If I be wrong in the conclusion that the monies paid by her parents were advanced to the second defendant by way of gift, and instead they were advanced by way of loan, clause 6 of the 2008 Will operated so as to forgive those loans. Accordingly, the property would remain wholly the property of the second defendant, legally and beneficially, in that event.Conclusions As at the date of his death, Ernest Hayes did not have an interest in land described as Lot 87 Registered Plan 116097 County of Stanley Parish of Chuwar Certificate of Title No 707394736 also known as 21-23 Allawah Road, Chuwar in the State of Queensland. The plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is dismissed. I shall hear the parties as to the form of orders and costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.