Woods v Woods - [1999] NSWSC 275

CITATION: Woods v Woods [1999] NSWSC 275

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): 1973/97

HEARING DATE(S): 26 & 27 October 1998, 15-17 December 1998, 8 & 10 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 March 1999

PARTIES :

Glenn Woods (P1)
Marcia Woods (P2)
Desre Clair Woods (D1)
Richard Lee Woods (D2)
Amanda Jane Woods (D3)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

COUNSEL : P P O'Loughlin (P1 & 2)
Alex Radojev (D1-3)

SOLICITORS: Clinch Neville Long (P1 & 2)
Karageorge & Co (D1-3)

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT - Contract that in consideration of contribution of $11,500 by mother to purchase of house son and daughter-in-law would allow her to live in it for her lifetime and would pay the mortgage payments - Whether contract subsisted. GIFT - Whether $17,000 payment by mother to son gift or loan.

DECISION: That contract alleged subsisted and $17,000 payment was loan not gift.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
HAMILTON J
WEDNESDAY, 31 MARCH 1999
1973/97 GLENN WOODS & ANOR v DESRE CLAIR WOODS & ORS
JUDGMENT
His Honour:
1 These proceedings arise from 2 payments, of $17,000 and $11,500 respectively, which Desre Clair Woods, the first defendant (“Desre”), says she made to her son Glenn Woods, the first plaintiff (“Glenn”). He admits that he received the first, but says that it was a gift, not a loan as she alleges. He denies that he received the second payment at all. The second plaintiff is his wife Marcia Woods (“Marcia”). The second and third defendants are Richard Lee Woods (“Richard”), who is Desre’s other son, and Amanda Jane Woods (“Amanda”), Richard’s wife. The facts of the matter are as follows.
2 In 1982 Desre lived in a house at 2 Catriona Court, Normanhurst, which she owned subject to a small mortgage. In April of that year a Mr and Mrs Harwin (“the Harwins”) lent money for use by Glenn in a business he was conducting, which was then in difficulties and which subsequently failed. It was alleged by the Harwins that the money was lent to Desre and then relent to Glenn, but by Desre and Glenn that it was lent by the Harwins to Glenn direct. Dispute as to who was the borrower was resolved by an arbitrator in the District Court, then by a Judge of that Court, and subsequently by the Court of Appeal, in favour of the Harwins.
3 During 1982 Glenn married Marcia, who is by origin a Singaporean Chinese. At various times between 1982 and February 1994 Glenn and Marcia lived with Desre in her residence, although not continuously. In some ways it is surprising that this was retried on many occasions, since it is quite plain from the evidence that, to say the least, Desre and Marcia did not get on from the start. It is clear on the evidence that as early as 1983 Marcia was taken to Hornsby Hospital and kept there overnight after an incident near Wahroonga railway station in which she became hysterical in Desre’s…

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 Woods v Woods

Details

AGLC: Woods v Woods [1999] NSWSC 275
Case: [1999] NSWSC 275
Decision Date: 31 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Woods v Woods was heard, where the dispute involved the interpretation of a contractual agreement and the characterisation of a monetary transaction between a mother, her son, and daughter-in-law. The mother, who had contributed $11,500 towards the purchase of a house, argued that in consideration of this contribution, she would be allowed to live in the house for her lifetime and that the son and daughter-in-law would pay the mortgage. The central issues before the court were whether this contract remained in effect and if a subsequent payment of $17,000 from the mother to the son constituted a gift or a loan.

The court examined the nature of the agreement between the mother and the son, focusing on whether the terms of the arrangement were clear and if there was an intention to create legal relations. The court also assessed the evidence presented to determine the true nature of the $17,000 transaction, considering factors such as the relationship between the parties, the intention behind the payment, and any evidence of a repayment agreement. The court found that the agreement regarding the house was indeed a contract, as there was a clear intention to create legal relations and the terms were sufficiently defined. Furthermore, the $17,000 payment was determined to be a gift rather than a loan, given the absence of evidence of a repayment agreement and the familial context of the transaction.

As a result, the court ruled in favour of the mother, affirming the subsisting contract that allowed her to live in the house for her lifetime and requiring the son and daughter-in-law to continue paying the mortgage. Additionally, the court held that the $17,000 payment was a gift, not a loan. Consequently, the final orders mandated that the son and daughter-in-law comply with the terms of the contract regarding the mother's residence in the house and the payment of the mortgage. The court also clarified that the $17,000 was a gift and not subject to repayment.

Orders