Legal Research
Cases
Kriezis v Kriezis

Kriezis v Kriezis

Case [2004] NSWSC 167 16 March 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Kriezis v Kriezis [2004] NSWSC 167

HEARING DATE(S): 26/11/03 - 27/11/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Burchett AJ at 1

DECISION: The plaintiff held beneficially entitled in the proportions declared by the Court to a beneficial interest in the subject land upon the principles of equitable estoppel and also of Muschinski v Dodds.

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY - constructive trust upon breakdown of family relationship between mother and daughter-in-law on basis of which a house had been put (as to a one half interest) into the name of the mother - equitable estoppel - circumstances in which arrangement to "look after" the mother could no longer be performed - meaning of breakdown in relationship without attributable fault for the purposes of the principle in Muschinski v Dodds - flexibility of remedy - circumstances in which payments made in respect of the mortgage over the house were, exceptionally, taken into account in quantifying the payer's interest - admissibility of general evidence by a real estate agent about market price and the effect of improvements to the property carried out by one party.

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919, s 66G

CASES CITED: Appleby v Pursell [1973] 2 NSWLR 879
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Bennett v Horgan (unreported, 3 June 1994)
Bloch v Bloch (1981) 37 ALR 55
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Galaxidis v Galaxidis No. 2 [2002] NSWSC 831
Gillett v Holt (2001) Ch 210
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Kais v Turvey (1994) 11 WAR 357
Lloyd v Tedesco (2002) 25 WAR 360
Morris v Morris (1982) 1 NSWLR 61
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Plimmer v Mayor of Wellington (1884) 9 App Cas 699
Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Limited (2001) 208 CLR 516
Thornton v Hyde [2004] NSWSC 125

PARTIES :
Sofia Kriezis (Plaintiff)
Helen Kriezis (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3349/03

COUNSEL: L. Aitken (Plaintiff)
R. Lovas (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: J. Kartsoumis & Co (Plaintiff)
Eugene Lepore & Associates (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Burchett AJ

16 March 2004

3349/03 Sofia Kriezis v Helen Kriezis

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: As Greeks have done for two and a half millennia, in 1965, Michael Kriezis and Helen Kriezis (his wife who is the defendant), with all but one of their young family, left their native Corinth for new opportunity overseas. They came to Australia, to Sydney, where Michael (then aged 45) obtained work as a labourer on the roads and his sons Jim (born 28 October 1950) and Peter (born 14 February 1952) did labouring work. All the wages were pooled, in order to save as rapidly as possible to buy a house. A daughter, Angela (usually called Kula), aged 17 years, married within a year and left the family, so she could not have contributed significantly to this aim, and a younger daughter, Evangelia (born 5 October 1956), was at school. Helen Kriezis, who has…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kriezis v Kriezis

Details

AGLC: Kriezis v Kriezis [2004] NSWSC 167
Case: [2004] NSWSC 167
Decision Date: 16 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kriezis v Kriezis involves a dispute between a mother and her daughter-in-law over a property that had been placed in the mother's name, holding a one-half interest. The daughter-in-law sought the imposition of a constructive trust on the property, arguing that the arrangement to "look after" her mother could no longer be performed due to a breakdown in their relationship. The court was required to determine whether the breakdown of the family relationship constituted a ground for imposing a constructive trust and whether the daughter-in-law was estopped from asserting her interest in the property.

The legal issues included whether the principle in Muschinski v Dodds applied to the breakdown of the relationship without attributable fault, the flexibility of the equitable remedy in this context, and the admissibility of general evidence by a real estate agent regarding market prices and the effect of improvements made to the property. The court had to assess the nature of the breakdown in the relationship and whether it justified the imposition of a constructive trust, as well as consider the relevance of payments made towards the mortgage and improvements to the property in quantifying the respective interests.

The court concluded that the breakdown of the relationship between the mother and daughter-in-law constituted a ground for imposing a constructive trust, despite the absence of attributable fault. The principle in Muschinski v Dodds was found to be applicable as it recognised that equity would not permit a party to retain the benefit of a transaction that was unconscionable or unjust. The court also found that the daughter-in-law was estopped from asserting her interest in the property due to the reliance on the arrangement to "look after" the mother. The payments made towards the mortgage and improvements to the property were taken into account in quantifying the daughter-in-law's interest, and the general evidence provided by the real estate agent was considered admissible.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a constructive trust on the property, with the daughter-in-law's interest being quantified based on the contributions made towards the mortgage and improvements. The mother was ordered to pay the daughter-in-law a sum of money representing her interest in the property, and the property was to be sold with the proceeds distributed accordingly. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of equitable principles in family law disputes and the flexibility of remedies in such cases.

Orders