Holz v Davis
[2010] QSC 452
•13 December 2010
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Holz v Davis & Anor [2010] QSC 452
PARTIES:
CHRISTINE ANNE HOLZ by her Litigation Guardian LEANNE MAY MCKIE
(plaintiff)
v
EARL SEYMOUR DAVIS
(first defendant)
AND
CHRISTIAN LEGAL GROUP INC
(second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BS7049/08
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
13 December 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 – 24 August 2010
JUDGE:
Martin J
ORDER:
THE PLAINTIFF IS TO BRING IN MINUTES OF ORDER
CATCHWORDS:
EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – RESCISSION – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – where the plaintiff suffers from a mental illness – where the defendant represented himself as a person capable of providing financial and legal advice – where the defendant arranged for property to be transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant and bodies controlled by the defendant – whether there was an unconscionable voluntary disposition
Antonovicv Volker (1986) 7 NSWLR 151
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489
COUNSEL:
N A Martin for the plaintiff
The first defendant was self-representedNo appearance for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:
Landmark Lawyers for the plaintiff
The first defendant was self-representedNo appearance for the second defendant
Background
The plaintiff seeks orders with respect to a property at Cedar Vale (“the Cedar Vale property”). In particular, she seeks injunctions and declarations with respect to that property. It is alleged that the transfer of that property to the first defendant (“Mr Davis”) was the result of an unconscionable transaction.
Ms Holz is now 56 years old. She finished school at the end of grade 7 and can read and write at a functional level, but does not have any useful comprehension of legal or financial issues. She receives a disability pension as she is blind in one eye.
For the purposes of this action, Ms Holz was examined by a psychiatrist, Dr Gary Larder. His conclusions were:
(a) Ms Holz has been suffering from a mental illness for over 30 years.
(b) “… She has a long history of non-compliance with medical treatment, this illness is marked by a severe and almost total lack of insight into the fact that she has a chronic psychotic illness, and that this illness impairs her mental state functioning and that she needs indefinite medical care for this illness.
Your client currently presents with formal thought disorder (a feature of chronic psychosis, due in my opinion to the diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia. Her mind afflicted by the impact of mental illness causes her thoughts to ramble, she cannot stick to the point, and she displays marked degrees of circumstantiality. Circumstantialities (in psychiatry) is defined as:-
‘a speech pattern in which a patient has difficulty in separating relevant from irrelevant information while describing an event. The patient often includes all details and presents them in a sequential order, with the result that the main thread of thought becomes lost as one association leads to another. Frequently the person may need to have questions repeated because the main point of answers has become lost in the confusion of unnecessary detail.’
This thinking pattern is also called loosening of associations.
In addition, based on your client’s current presentation and the accounts of her mental state functioning in the hospital notes provided, it is likely that your client’s mind has been afflicted by circumstantialities over the years from 1992 …
The loss of order in thinking that gets lost in the confusion of unnecessary detail will have caused your client to struggle greatly with the details, nuances, meaning and complexities of understanding legal matters and advising legal counsel on actions in this regard.”
(c) The loss of capacity to function independently in the community was, on occasions, complete.
(d) In the period from late 2004 to early 2005 it is very unlikely that she would have had the ability to understand legal documents such as a trust deed.
(e) She would not have been capable of managing her legal affairs.
In March 1996 Ms Holz married Graham Haynes. The union was not happy. The plaintiff eventually left Mr Haynes in 2004, after many years of physical and mental abuse. They divorced in 2005. In an unrelated incident, Mr Haynes was later murdered.
From about 2001 Ms Holz attended the Garden City Christian Church. Through an acquaintance there, she became aware of Mr Davis and she contacted him with respect to her marital problems and financial arrangements.
Mr Davis held himself out as a mediator and a person capable of providing financial and legal advice. He became heavily involved with both Ms Holz and Mr Haynes and purported to act for them and to advise them on the manner in which they should resolve their marital and financial problems. He took part in the negotiation of a form of property settlement between Ms Holz and Mr Haynes and, when Ms Holz left the marital home, he assisted her with finding accommodation and generally.
Mr Davis is the President of the Christian Legal Group Inc (“CLG”). It was previously known as Christian Legal Services. There was evidence that the Queensland Law Society had expressed concern about that body holding itself out as able to provide legal services when it had no legally qualified persons in the group. On a website which was searched on 15 April 2008, the following description of the group was given:
“Christian Legal Group Inc is a Non profit [sic] association that was established in 1997. The founder is Earl Seymour Davis. The group was established to help people and give them an understanding of the alternative resolutions that are available to them. Mediation and conflict resolution is a very important beginning in dispute resolution. The legal system through out [sic] the world has finally come to understand that mediation is a powerful tool and cannot be ignored. We can assit [sic] you in all areas, Just [sic] to name a few....
* Family Disputes
* Court Matters
* Police Matters
* Finance problems
* Business Matters
* Injury Claims
* Criminal Compensation Claims
In all your Getting Get Understanding.
*Generosity With Justice”On 19 April 2003 Ms Holz hand wrote a document which was later relied upon by Mr Davis. It provided:
“I Mrs Christine Anne Hayne
of 28 Agnes Street Acacia Ridge
Brisbane – 4110
here by authorise
Mr Earl Davis
of the Christian Legal Group Inc to excute [sic] all of my
legal affairs of credits [sic]
cards and all of my legal
and financial and legal
affairs as from – 19-1-04.
Janury (sic) 2004
Date by myself
Mrs Christine Anne Hayne
Authorisation Mrs C Haynes
Mrs C Haynes
Witness
Earl Davis”Mr Davis was asked about this document and why it was that, while dated 19 April 2003, it was not to take effect until 19 January 2004. Mr Davis’ explanation was vague and unsatisfactory. It was one of many answers from him in that category.
Mr Davis was an unsatisfactory witness. In cross-examination he would often take a long time to answer a question where that question touched upon matters which might show him or his conduct in a bad light. That is not particularly unusual, but his almost constant prevarication on these points and his refusal to make any concession against his own interest even when that concession was, on the available documents, inevitable, meant that I could not place reliance on his answers unless they were supported by other reliable evidence. His evidence with respect to his knowledge of Mrs Holz’ mental state was particularly unimpressive. I will return to that later.
The Yehshua Unit Trust
On 10 November 2004 Mr Davis established the Yehshua Unit Trust. He was then the trustee. There were 10,001 units issued – 10,000 to the Davis Family Trust and one to Ms Holz. At trial, Mr Davis purported to be unsure as to who the trustee was and who the beneficiaries of that trust were. On documents he created, such as Ex 9, the CLG is noted as the trustee of the Davis Family Trust.
Mr Davis says that he caused the unit issue to increase to 170,000 units with Ms Holz receiving 103,000 of them. This was not reflected in any of the documents which were disclosed. Mr Davis was given the opportunity at the end of the first day of the trial to find and bring any other relevant documents. There was no such documentary evidence.
Mr Davis did produce some documents relating to other transactions alleged to have occurred within the Yehshua Unit Trust. He produced a computer generated “Certificate of Units” purporting to record the grant to Christine Holz of 93 units. It bears his signature and is dated November 23, 2006. Another document produced by Mr Davis is entitled “Request for Cancellation of Units” and is addressed to him as the trustee. It purports to be a request from Ms Holz but it is not signed by her; rather, it is signed by Mr Davis. The request is for a cancellation of 103 units in consideration of the trustee allocating what the trustee decides is the fair value of the units to be cancelled by way of a distribution to the unit holder. That document is dated 1 September 2006. Another document produced is a statutory declaration alleged to have been made under the Oaths Act 1867-1981 which is said to have been signed by Ms Holz on 3 October 2005. The declaration was:
“That I have redeemed all my units in the Yehshua Unit Trust. The total amount of 103 units. The cash value of the units are [sic] $103,000.
I fully understand that I have no more units in the Yehshua Unit Trust.
The trustee Mr Earl Seymour Davis gave me the opportunity seek legal advise [sic]. I understand also that I do not have a claim against the trust or the trustee of Yehshua whatsoever. I have also satisfied myself with the valuation done by Taylor & Cook Real Estate.”
Mr Davis could not satisfactorily explain any of these purported changes in unit holdings. When he was asked whether he gave Ms Holz $103,000 for the alleged redemption of her units, he said that:
“$103,000 was put – what had to occur there, because there was no liquid capital to service the trust, to service her request, so an application was made to St George Bank to be able to liquidate the trust so there could be moneys there, so Mr Holz could travel and draw down and from that point on she was aware she could draw down on those moneys”
Later, he said:
“And that 103,000 she has never received it, has she?-- It's always been there and it's always been available and I've explained to her legal counsel that it was always there and it could be drawn down - as the trust says within the 90 days of notice you could - you could call for the full amount, which in my correspondence …”
Evidence he gave later satisfied me that the money was never available to pay Ms Holz. There was a credit limit with St George Bank which could be drawn upon but it was used to finance other matters including the Jaybez Trust.
The Cedar Vale property
When Mr Davis began to deal with Ms Holz and Mr Haynes there were two pieces of real property which constituted most of the matrimonial property. One of them was the Cedar Vale property. Ms Holz and Mr Haynes reached an agreement as to a property settlement. It required Mr Haynes to pay out the loan secured against the Cedar Vale property with the intention that that property would be transferred to Ms Holz in full satisfaction of her entitlements under the agreement. That did not occur.
In September 2004 Ms Holz and Mr Davis attended on Christine Vachon, a solicitor, to provide legal services with respect to the settlement of the property matters between Ms Holz and Mr Haynes. Mr Davis told Ms Vachon that there was no need for a trust account authority as on receipt of final payment the file was to be handed over to CLG. Ms Vachon insisted on a signed trust account authority and, with respect to the transfer of the Cedar Vale property, she made enquiries about the proposal. She noted that it was proposed that the property be transferred to Mr Davis and another person as trustees for the Jaybez Unit Trust. She asked whether Ms Holz would have any interest in the property after it had been transferred to that unit trust. She also noted that the proposal was quite unusual and she sought additional information.
In November 2004 Mr Davis advised Ms Vachon that the final agreement reached was that Ms Holz was to have the Cedar Vale property transferred to her unencumbered. On 28 November Ms Vachon sent an email to Mr Davis in which, among other things, she said:
“With respect to any proposed transfer of the land from Christine to Yeshiva [sic] Unit Trust, I cannot see that Christine will be getting a fair share. She will have one unit and your family trust will have 10,000 units and the trustee is unclear. Is there any reason for the division?”
In an apparent response to that enquiry, Mr Davis sent an email on 4 January in which he said:
“Greetings and salutations.
Compliments of the Season. May God’s blessing be with you and your practice now and forever more.
In regard to the unit holdings I propose the following issue.
Christine Haynes: 170,000 unit
Christian Legal Group: 20,000 units for services rendered for 2 years mediation and daily council [sic]. My charges are 10% of settlement which is conservative on current valuations.
Davis Family Trust: 10,000 units in payment for a Daewoo Cielo motor vehicle 1997 registered, which Christine has asked me to supply her son. This issue is above the $170,000 valuation due to the appreciation on the land.
Current valuation between $220k and $250.”On 7 January Mr Davis sent an email to Ms Vachon telling her that he was going to instruct Horricks Solicitors with respect to the transfer of the Cedar Vale property. On the same day he sent an email to those solicitors in which he set out the details of the transaction as follows:
“Family settlement matter. Between Graham Haynes and Christine Haynes.
Family solicitor for Christine Haynes.
Christine Vachon Solicitors [address supplied]
The property will be transferred into Yehshua Unit Trust.
Trustees are: Earl Seymour Davis and Christine Ann Haynes
Details: Yehshua Unit Trust and Christine Haynes
C/O Christian Legal Group Inc and Holy Ground
[address details]”Ms Vachon was, quite properly, concerned about the proposed dealings with the property. On 7 January she wrote to Mr Davis outlining her concerns and saying that she would not act beyond transferring the property to Ms Holz as she was concerned about the trust. She said that she would advise Ms Holz once the property had been transferred into her name as to what should then occur.
Mr Davis’ response was:
“Our instructions where [sic] clear from day one in regard to the unit trust.
If you feel there is a conflict of interest it may be in our interest to have a firm who deals in both areas of law to preside over the said matter.
Property trusts, estate planning and family law. At no stage did we engage you to advise or set up a trust account. The solicitor for setting up the unit trust are Maddocks [address details]. You have the Yehshua unit trustee on file.
It is not a conflict of interest but a lack of understanding not having been involved in the Lord’s work or perhaps how a unit trusts [sic] works. On second thoughts I get the feeling you may be referring to financial advice. Is this correct?
I think the best solution is to conclude this matter to the said end in family law. We have engaged other solicitors to handle the unit trust transfer settlement which we gave to you in the beginning of this matter and today.
I trust that this will conclude any further concern that you might have of Christine Haynes’ desire to administer her property through a unit trust. If need be we are available to discuss this matter at your invitation. As a professional mediator I have witnessed many a family law matter go down the wrong path, we will continue to pray and intercede on this matter.”Three days later Mr Davis told Ms Vachon not to proceed further with the settlement.
Mr Davis retained another firm to transfer the property to the trust. The information provided by Mr Davis for the purpose of this transfer was incorrect. In the form used for “property transfer information” he provided information that the transferor and transferee were related. That was untrue. The degree of relationship was described as “husband & wife to trust” and that the consideration was equal to or greater than the unencumbered value of the property included in the transaction. That was untrue.
The Cedar Vale property was transferred to the Yehshua Unit Trust. Mr Davis told Ms Holz that the Trust was created for her benefit to hold the property on transfer but Ms Holz was allocated only one unit in the Trust while the remaining 20,000 units were allocated to the Davis Family Trust which was controlled by Mr Davis. This transfer occurred in March 2005. The consideration for the transfer was shown as $170,000.
On 3 July 2008 Ms Holz lodged a caveat over the Cedar Vale property. That caveat was the subject of a requisition and a copy of the requisition was sent to Mr Davis as the registered owner.
About one week after becoming aware of the caveat, Mr Davis purported to have the Cedar Vale property transferred into the name of Concept Opportunity Group Pty Ltd. The consideration stated in the transfer was: “Change of trustee from Earl Seymour Davis to Concept Opportunity Group Pty Ltd”. Concept Opportunity Group Pty Ltd is a company controlled by Mr Davis. The house in which Mr Davis and his family live is rented by Concept Opportunity Group Pty Ltd from the owner.
Mr Davis gave evidence that the reason for the proposed transfer and change of trustee was that he had received advice that it would be better if the Yehshua Unit Trust had a corporate trustee. I do not accept that. I think it much more likely that it was an attempt by him, having become aware of the caveat, to remove the ownership of the property into another entity and thereby make it harder for Ms Holz to achieve a remedy.
On 25 July 2008 Mr Davis lodged a general request with the Land Registry seeking the removal of the caveat. The terms of the request were:
“I hereby request that: the caveat 711769992 be removed and discharged. The caveator has failed in getting a court order preventing the removal. Enclosed is a Statutory Declaration of evidence in support that the caveator has satisfied herself with legal advise [sic] and no further claims against the trustee and/or the Yehshua Unit Trust on this day 3rd October 2005 made before the Commissioner of Declaration in the Supreme Court of Australia. The trustee has given notice of 14 days to Chris Wlodarczyk & Co solicitors ‘Rae Harrild’ on the 09/07/2008 at 7.30pm. 14 days have now expired.”
The statutory declaration to which Mr Davis referred in his request to have the caveat removed was one which was apparently executed by Ms Holz on 3 October 2005. The contents of it are set out in paragraph [13] above. There is, of course, no reference in that “statutory declaration” to not having any interest in the land and, in any case, the “statutory declaration” was executed some three years before the caveat was lodged.
The “Invoices”
Mr Davis had an unusual way of corresponding with people. He frequently used a document which was in the form of an invoice. Sometimes it would be used to convey information. On other occasions it would be used to make a claim for money and he used it in his attempts to deal with the Public Trustee with respect to the estate of Mr Haynes.
Mr Davis made a number of representations to the Public Trustee. He said that CLG had been appointed the administrators of the estate of Mr Haynes. This was untrue. He said that CLG had acted for Mr Haynes and Ms Holz over the last five years. This was untrue.
He asked the Public Trustee to direct any person interested in the Estate of the Late Mr Haynes to make enquiries of CLG.
Not surprisingly, the Public Trustee viewed these matters with some suspicion. On 15 September Mr Davis sent a letter to the Public Trustee advising that he was making a claim under the provisions of Part IV of the Succession Act 1981. In that letter he suggested that the claim was, in fact, a debt. In a letter of 6 November 2007 to the Public Trustee, Mr Davis stated:
“Thank you for your letter of 19 September 2007 and your telephone conversation of late. The fact of law has provision for a claim as a former dependent spouse in Part 4 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld). The detail of a continuing payment clearly confirms ongoing support for Mrs Haynes by the late Graham Leslie Haynes. Also bearing in mind that there is no objection by the two other benifiheries [sic].
In simple, I will try and explain the claim of Christian [sic] Ann Haynes. Provision may not be absolute in the legislation to make a decisive decision, however I do hope there is some compassion and understanding in this matter.
The claim is made under Part IV of the Successions [sic] Act 1981 (relating to family provision) being equal shares for Christine Hayes [sic], Shane and Michael Haynes. If this is not granted then a claim as a debt is entered. A sum being $15,000 credit card debt and $20 per week for the natural term of Christine’s life let’s say 50 years. That would amount to $52,000. Physical damage to her voice box when she was throttled by the deceased Graham Leslie Haynes. I believe Christine Haynes was treated at the Queensland Elizabeth Hospital. At least $50,000. The total being $117,000. All police records and reports can be obtained from the Acacia Ridge Police Station.
I would also recommend that Christine Haynes is awarded the house including the liability to St George Bank. All other proceeds to be left to Shane and Michael Haynes. This would provide accommodation for her which she so desperately needs.”There was further correspondence with the Public Trustee which evidences an attempt by the Public Trustee to understand what Mr Davis was claiming, and further letters from Mr Davis which simply demonstrated that he had no idea of what he was talking about. Mr Davis eventually gave up in his attempts to have the Public Trustee make the payments he demanded be made.
The relationship between Mr Davis and Ms Holz
Mr Davis accepted that Ms Holz trusted him implicitly to look after her interests. He knew that she was not capable of managing her financial affairs for herself so that is why, he said, he helped her with them. He insisted that money was available for her to draw down at her will but, of course, she had to ask him before she could access any money. There is no evidence which would support any conclusion other than that Mr Davis was completely aware of Ms Holz’s marital circumstances, her uncertainty with respect to dealing with money and that she was entirely reliant upon him with respect to the Cedar Vale property and all other financial matters. Mr Davis believed himself able to devise schemes which would allow for the transfer of property and, it appears, he was of the view that a unit trust was a panacea which could be applied to the circumstances of Ms Holz. He represented himself not just as a mediator but as someone who had legal skills capable of being used for the benefit of Ms Holz. He did not have those skills.
Mr Davis may well have assisted Ms Holz early in the relationship and, in particular, when she was still living with her late husband. But it was not charity in the usual sense. Mr Davis wanted to charge for his services. Indeed, when he arranged for her to rent some equipment such as a television it was from an entity which he controlled. I find that he came to see Ms Holz’s predicament as an opportunity for him and he did whatever he could to strip her of her property and place it, if not in his name alone, into an entity which he could control and through which he could deny Ms Holz any control.
The tests to be applied
Ms Martin, who appeared for Ms Holz, argued that the relevant principles are not those applicable to unconscionable bargains but those applicable to unconscionable voluntary dispositions. The proper characterisation of the “transaction” is important in determining the appropriate tests to apply. In this case, it is possible to start from the premise that Ms Holz did not know what she was doing or, at the very least, did not appreciate the significance of what she was doing.
For the reasons which I set out below, this is a case in which a transaction has been procured through the unfair advantage taken by a stronger party (Mr Davis) of a special disability or disadvantageous position of a weaker party (Ms Holz). The equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealing will afford relief in such a case (Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 at 461).
In Unconscionable Conduct (2nd ed., Thomson Reuters, Sydney, 2009) the following elements – which accurately reflect the current state of the law – have been extracted from Amadio and Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362:
(a) the party seeking relief must, at the time of entering into the transaction, suffer from a special disability vis-à-vis the other party;
(b) the special disability must seriously affect the party’s capacity to judge or protect his or her own interests;
(c) the other party must know of the special disability;
(d) that party must take advantage of the opportunity presented by the disability; and
(e) the taking of advantage must have been unconscientious.
If a party can satisfy each of those steps, then a presumption of unconscionability arises and the burden is on the defendant to rebut it.
I will examine the evidence in the light of those five criteria.
The party seeking relief must, at the time of entering into the transaction, suffer from a special disability vis-à-vis the other party
Dr Larder’s report satisfies me that, at all relevant times, Ms Holz suffered from a mental illness. That illness meant that she was not capable of managing her legal or financial affairs and that she would have struggled with the details and complexities of the proposals put forward by Mr Davis with respect to the Yehshua Unit Trust. While Dr Larder could not say that Ms Holz would have relied on Mr Davis to protect her financial and legal interests, it was more likely than not that that would have occurred. I am satisfied that, at all relevant times, Ms Holz was not capable of understanding the consequences of her property settlement with Mr Haynes. She would have had even less capacity to comprehend the dealings which involved Mr Davis, CLG and the Yehshua Unit Trust. Her condition comes within the description of “special disability” considered by Fullagar J in Blomley v Ryan at 407 where his Honour said that such disabilities included “…poverty or need of any kind, sickness, age, sex, infirmity of body or mind, drunkenness, illiteracy or lack of education, lack of assistance or explanation where assistance or explanation is necessary”. Ms Holz satisfies a number of those indicia, including infirmity of mind, lack of education, and lack of assistance where assistance was necessary.
The special disability must seriously affect the party’s capacity to judge or protect his or her own interests
It is clear from Dr Larder’s opinion and also from Ms Holz’s actions that her mental illness removed her capacity to protect her own interests.
The other party must know of the special disability
Mr Davis had been aware for years of the relationship between Ms Holz and her former husband. He knew that she had suffered serious physical and mental abuse and that she was in fear of Mr Haynes. He knew that she required assistance with her financial affairs, and he gave evidence that he would not have advanced all of the money he alleges was available to Ms Holz because “it would have been irresponsible”. I find that he was aware that Ms Holz was not in a position to manage her own financial matters or to protect herself with respect to her own property. While she may have been capable of dealing with small amounts of money for minor matters, he knew that if Ms Holz had been allowed to have a large sum of money then it would have been frittered away. Thus, I find that Mr Davis knew of her infirmity of mind (without knowing the precise cause or all of its features), her lack of education and her need for assistance or explanation.
The party must take advantage of the opportunity presented by the disability
It may be the case that when Mr Davis commenced his “mediation” between Ms Holz and Mr Haynes he was attempting to be of assistance to them. Nevertheless, when an opportunity presented itself for him to remove any control she might have had over property the subject of any divorce settlement he took that opportunity. The prime example of that is the transfer of the Cedar Vale property to him as trustee of the Yehshua Unit Trust with his own family trust owning 20,000 of the 20,001 units in the trust. I also consider that the documents which Ms Holz purportedly executed (such as statutory declarations) were part of Mr Davis’s attempts to add verisimilitude to what was otherwise a clumsy attempt to remove control of the Cedar Vale property from her.
The taking of advantage must have been unconscientious
What is unconscientious or unconscionable has been said to be “…better described than defined”: Antonovicv Volker (1986) 7 NSWLR 151 at 165. The courts are astute to ensure that the concept of unconscionability is not used as a charter for the judicial reformation of contracts – Stern v McArthur (1988) 165 CLR 489 at 514. In the facts of this case, there is little need to examine the many cases which deal with questions of unconscionable conduct or unconscientious behaviour. There is no bright line definition which can be applied to these matters and it is inevitable that the scope for the operation of precedent is limited. The relationship between the parties and the conduct leading up to the transfer of the Cedar Vale property into Mr Davis’ name was, in my view, clearly unconscientious behaviour. That conclusion is fortified by consideration of Mr Davis’ behaviour after that transfer, especially when he sought to change the trustee of the Yehshua Unit Trust in order, as he saw it, to evade the effects of the caveat lodged by Ms Holz.
Appropriate order
I will make orders which will require that Mr Davis do all that is necessary to place the Cedar Vale property in Ms Holz’s name. The plaintiff is to bring in appropriate minutes of order. I expect that the litigation guardian or some other suitable person will, if this has not already occurred, apply to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for appropriate orders with respect to Ms Holz.
0
6
0