Legal Research
Cases
Taddeo v Taddeo

Taddeo v Taddeo

Case [2010] SADC 61 11 May 2010

De Facto Relationships

Adjustment of Property Interests

Constructive Trusts

Resulting Trusts

Limitation of Actions

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
TADDEO v TADDEO
[2010] SADC 61
Judgment of His Honour Judge Nicholson
11 May 2010
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - RELATIONSHIP
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY INTERESTS - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
EQUITY - TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS GENERALLY - CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS IN GENERAL - IMPLIED TRUSTS - CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS - INDEPENDENT OF INTENTION - PARTICULAR CASES
EQUITY - TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES - CONSTITUTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS GENERALLY - CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS IN GENERAL - IMPLIED TRUSTS - RESULTING TRUSTS - WHERE INTENTION PRESUMED - REBUTTAL OF IMPLICATION - PRESUMPTION OF ADVANCEMENT
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR - EXTENSION OF PERIOD - OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION
86 year old mother (plaintiff) and 55 year old daughter (defendant) lived together for 24 years in a house registered solely in the name of the daughter. Plaintiff vacated the house on or about 15 October 2007. Issues to be determined included the following.
Were the parties domestic partners within the terms of the relevant legislation?
If so, did their domestic partnership come to an end after 1 June 2007 so as to attract the jurisdiction conferred by the relevant legislation?
If so, was the plaintiff entitled to an order in her favour for division of property?
Held: the plaintiff was so entitled and orders for division of property made. Extension of time granted within which such a claim could be brought. Consideration also given to whether or not the plaintiff was also entitled to a remedy pursuant to the law governing resulting trusts and constructive trusts.
Domestic Partners Property Act 1996 s9, s10, s11, s12; Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s19, s22; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s5; Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) ; Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT) ; Property Law Act 1974 (QLD) Part 19; Relationships Act 2008 (VIC) s35; Family Court Act 1997 (WA) Part 5A; Relationships Act 2003 (ACT) ; De Facto Relationships Act (NT) ; Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act s15AB; Statutory Interpretation Australia 5th ed. Butterworths, DC Pearce and RS Geddes at [4.47]; Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia 7th ed. Butterworths, JD Heydon and MJ Leeming, referred to.
R v McGlynn (2004) 87 SASR 440; Gerah Imports Pty Ltd v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) (2004) 88 SASR 419; Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 208 ALR 124; R v Owen; Owen v South Australia (1996) 66 SASR 251; Ye v Fung [2006] NSWSC 243; Karpathiou v Clemente [2008] SASC 316; Petersen v Gregory; Estate Glenn Alfred Petersen [2007] NSWSC 8; Taddeo v Taddeo & Catalano (1978) 19 SASR 347, 361; Hogg v Roberts (2003) 87 SASR 248; Parker v Parker 16 Fam LR 863; Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242; The Trustees of the property of Cummins v Cummins & Another (2006) 227 CLR 278; Muschinski v Dodds

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 Taddeo v Taddeo

Details

AGLC: Taddeo v Taddeo [2010] SADC 61
Case: [2010] SADC 61
Decision Date: 11 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the parties, Taddeo and Taddeo, concerning the existence of a de facto relationship and the adjustment of property interests between them. The dispute was resolved by the Family Court of Australia, with the decision being made by Judge King. The court had to determine whether the parties were in a de facto relationship and, if so, whether the parties' conduct gave rise to an implied or constructive trust over certain property.

The primary legal issues were whether there was a de facto relationship between the parties and, if so, what the implications were for the division of their property. The court examined the conduct of the parties to ascertain the nature of their relationship and whether it was appropriate to impose a constructive trust over the property in question. The court also considered whether any presumptions, such as the presumption of advancement, applied to the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the parties were in a de facto relationship and that their conduct warranted the imposition of a constructive trust over the property in question. The court rejected the presumption of advancement and held that the parties' conduct did not support such a presumption. The court further held that the limitation period for bringing the claim was extended due to the parties' conduct and the fact that the claim was brought in good faith. The court ordered that the property be held on trust for the parties in equal shares, subject to certain exceptions.

In conclusion, the court held that the parties were in a de facto relationship and that a constructive trust should be imposed over the property in question. The court also held that the limitation period for bringing the claim was extended due to the parties' conduct and the fact that the claim was brought in good faith. The final orders of the court were that the property be held on trust for the parties in equal shares, subject to certain exceptions.

Orders