Ristic v Maroti (No 2) - [2014] VSC 540

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

S CI 2013 04246

STEVE RISTIC	Plaintiff
v
VALERIA MAROTI	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Lansdowne AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 March 2014 and 29 April 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 October 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ristic v Maroti (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 540

---

FUNDS IN COURT –Balance proceeds from sale of land paid into Court by stakeholder– s 69 Trustee Act 1958 (Vic) - Application by registered proprietor for payment out – Competing application by person claiming to be former de facto partner – Constructive trust – Disputes as to the length and nature of the relationship – Concurrent applications under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and under the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic) – Alleged contributions by advances to and for the registered proprietor and by way of driving his company car and so allowing him to retain employment – Contributions not proved save for admission as to a debt – Not unconscionable for registered proprietor to claim the whole subject to limited repayment to defendant – Payment out accordingly.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	Mr J McIntyre (13 March 2014) Mr R Moore (29 April 2014)	Goodman Group Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary............................................................................................................... 2

History of the dispute........................................................................................................................ 3

Relevant legal principles.................................................................................................................. 6

Findings of facts............................................................................................................................... 11

14 Waranga Road, Bayswater.................................................................................................... 11
Period of cohabitation................................................................................................................ 13
Nature of the relationship.......................................................................................................... 19
Social occasions and trips................................................................................................. 20
Emotional engagement..................................................................................................... 21
Findings as to the length of the relationship................................................................. 25
Presentation to the outside world................................................................................... 26
Not sexually exclusive...................................................................................................... 27
Financial arrangements..................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion as to shared life............................................................................................. 29

Contributions by the defendant................................................................................................ 29
Driving assistance.............................................................................................................. 30
Financial assistance........................................................................................................... 31

Conclusion on contribution........................................................................................................... 35

Admission as to a debt.................................................................................................................... 36

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 38

HER HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

This proceeding concerns the entitlement to a sum of money deposited into the Court on 20 December 2012. The sum paid in, $136,141.92, was the balance proceeds of sale of a property registered in the sole name of the plaintiff at the time of the sale, 14 Waranga Road, Bayswater. The plaintiff claims the whole of the funds that remain. In the course of these proceedings I have ordered three payments by way of interim distribution to the plaintiff, to be taken into account on final orders in the proceeding. As a result of those interim distributions, the payment of interest and deduction of tax on interest, the sum remaining as at 24 October 2014 is the sum of $112,641.14. On payment out any additional interest will be added, and a sum retained for anticipated tax liability on interest.

The defendant seeks payment out to her of one half of the sum paid in, being $68,070.96. She claims that she and the plaintiff were in a de facto relationship from 2006 until May 2011 and that by virtue of financial and non-financial contributions she…

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 Ristic v Maroti (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Ristic v Maroti (No 2) [2014] VSC 540
Case: [2014] VSC 540
Decision Date: 24 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ristic v Maroti, the dispute arose from the proceeds of the sale of a parcel of land which had been paid into court by a stakeholder. The registered proprietor of the land, Ristic, sought payment of the proceeds, which were held in court under section 69 of the Trustee Act 1958 (Vic). A competing application was made by Maroti, who claimed to be Ristic’s former de facto partner and sought that a constructive trust be imposed over the funds to recognise her alleged contributions to Ristic’s property and income.

The court was tasked with determining the nature of the relationship between Ristic and Maroti, as well as the extent of any contributions made by Maroti. The case involved complex issues under both the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Relationships Act 2008 (Vic). The court needed to weigh the evidence regarding the duration and nature of the relationship, as well as the nature and extent of Maroti's alleged contributions, which included financial advances and personal sacrifices such as driving Ristic’s company car to enable him to maintain employment.

The court found that while Maroti had made some contributions, these were not adequately substantiated except for an admission regarding a debt. The court concluded that it was not unconscionable for Ristic to claim the entirety of the proceeds, subject to a limited repayment to Maroti. The court determined that the contributions made by Maroti, while not fully proven, warranted some recognition, but this did not justify a significant portion of the funds being held under a constructive trust. Consequently, the court ordered the payment of the majority of the proceeds to Ristic, with a smaller sum to be paid to Maroti as a partial acknowledgment of her claims.

The final orders of the court were that the majority of the proceeds held by the court be paid to Ristic, with a specified amount to be paid to Maroti. This outcome balanced the need to recognise some contributions made by Maroti with the requirement to protect Ristic's legal ownership of the funds.

Orders