Ormos v Ormos - [2023] QDC 153

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ormos and Anor v Ormos [2023] QDC 153

PARTIES:

GABRIELLA ORMOS
(first plaintiff)

and

GLEN WOOD
(second plaintiff)

v

LESLIE ORMOS
(defendant)

FILE NO.:

1839/18

DIVISION:

Civil Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 and 8 June and 30 August 2023 (written submissions on 9, 13 and 14 June 2023)

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDERS:

1. I SHALL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO THE FORM OF THE ORDERS.

2. I DIRECT THE PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE A WRITTEN OUTLINE ON THE ISSUE OF COSTS BY 15 SEPTEMBER 2023, WITH THE DEFENDANT TO RESPOND BY 27 SEPTEMBER 2023.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – ORAL AGREEMENT – CREDIBILITY FINDINGS – where the plaintiffs allege that the first plaintiff and defendant orally agreed that the defendant would purchase the Property in his name and transfer it to the plaintiffs when they were in a position to obtain finance in their own names – where the defendant contends that the agreement was for him to obtain finance so that he could purchase the Property as an investment for himself and the plaintiffs would rent it from him

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – RESULTING TRUSTS – where the plaintiffs live on the Property that was purchased by the defendant through a loan and registered in his name – where the plaintiffs assert that the Property is held on resultingtrust for them – where the basis of the alleged trust is the rebuttal of the presumption arising from the payment by the plaintiffs of mortgage repayments and other outgoings with respect to the Property –whether resultingtrust ought to be ordered

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – COMMON INTENTION – where the plaintiffs alternatively contend the defendant holds the Property under a common intention constructive trust – whether there was an actual or inferred common intention of the parties as to the plaintiffs’ beneficial interest in the Property – whether the plaintiffs acted to their detriment in reliance on the common intention – whether it is unconscionable for the defendant to assert that the Property is held free of any beneficial interest on the part of the plaintiffs

INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – AWARD OF INTEREST ON DEBTS AND SUMS CERTAIN where the plaintiffs paid out the defendant’s personal debts to facilitate the bank approving the defendant’s application to loan the money for the purchase price of the Property – whether interest is payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs on this sum in accordance with an agreement between the parties, or alternatively pursuant to s58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld).

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 58

Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Carlton v Goodman [2002] FLR 259
Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353
Grant v Edwards [1986] 2 All ER 426
Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343
Higgins v Wingfield [1987] VR 689
Iman…

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 Ormos v Ormos

Details

AGLC: Ormos v Ormos [2023] QDC 153
Case: [2023] QDC 153
Decision Date: 5 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ormos v Ormos, the plaintiffs sought to enforce an oral agreement with the defendant for the purchase and subsequent transfer of a property, along with asserting claims in equity for a resulting trust or constructive trust over the property. The defendant maintained that any agreement was for him to purchase the property as an investment and that the plaintiffs would rent it from him. The plaintiffs further claimed that they paid interest on debts of the defendant to facilitate a loan for the purchase of the property, seeking interest on this sum.

The court had to determine the credibility of the parties' accounts of the oral agreement and whether a resulting trust or constructive trust existed over the property. In assessing the oral agreement, the court considered the respective testimonies and credibility of the parties. In relation to the trust claims, the court examined whether the plaintiffs had rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust and whether there was a common intention for a constructive trust, as well as whether the plaintiffs had acted to their detriment or if it would be unconscionable for the defendant to deny their beneficial interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated the existence of the oral agreement as claimed. The plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust, and there was no evidence of a common intention for a constructive trust. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to interest on the sums paid towards the defendant’s debts. The parties were directed to discuss the form of orders and to file written submissions on the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I SHALL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO THE FORM OF THE ORDERS.

2. I DIRECT THE PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE A WRITTEN OUTLINE ON THE ISSUE OF COSTS BY 15 SEPTEMBER 2023, WITH THE DEFENDANT TO RESPOND BY 27 SEPTEMBER 2023.

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.

CITATION:	Ormos and Anor v Ormos [2023] QDC 153
PARTIES:	GABRIELLA ORMOS (first plaintiff) and GLEN WOOD (second plaintiff) v LESLIE ORMOS (defendant)
FILE NO.:	1839/18
DIVISION:	Civil Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	5 September 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 and 8 June and 30 August 2023 (written submissions on 9, 13 and 14 June 2023)
JUDGE:	Rosengren DCJ
ORDERS:	1. I SHALL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO THE FORM OF THE ORDERS. 2. I DIRECT THE PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE A WRITTEN OUTLINE ON THE ISSUE OF COSTS BY 15 SEPTEMBER 2023, WITH THE DEFENDANT TO RESPOND BY 27 SEPTEMBER 2023.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT – ORAL AGREEMENT – CREDIBILITY FINDINGS – where the plaintiffs allege that the first plaintiff and defendant orally agreed that the defendant would purchase the Property in his name and transfer it to the plaintiffs when they were in a position to obtain finance in their own names – where the defendant contends that the agreement was for him to obtain finance so that he could purchase the Property as an investment for himself and the plaintiffs would rent it from him EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – RESULTING TRUSTS – where the plaintiffs live on the Property that was purchased by the defendant through a loan and registered in his name – where the plaintiffs assert that the Property is held on resultingtrust for them – where the basis of the alleged trust is the rebuttal of the presumption arising from the payment by the plaintiffs of mortgage repayments and other outgoings with respect to the Property –whether resultingtrust ought to be ordered EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – COMMON INTENTION – where the plaintiffs alternatively contend the defendant holds the Property under a common intention constructive trust – whether there was an actual or inferred common intention of the parties as to the plaintiffs’ beneficial interest in the Property – whether the plaintiffs acted to their detriment in reliance on the common intention – whether it is unconscionable for the defendant to assert that the Property is held free of any beneficial interest on the part of the plaintiffs INTEREST – RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST – AWARD OF INTEREST ON DEBTS AND SUMS CERTAIN where the plaintiffs paid out the defendant’s personal debts to facilitate the bank approving the defendant’s application to loan the money for the purchase price of the Property – whether interest is payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs on this sum in accordance with an agreement between the parties, or alternatively pursuant to s58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld). Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 58 Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685 Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 Carlton v Goodman [2002] FLR 259 Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (1956) 95 CLR 353 Grant v Edwards [1986] 2 All ER 426 Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343 Higgins v Wingfield [1987] VR 689 Iman…