Young v Young - [2014] TASSC 24

[2014] TASSC 24

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Young v Young [2014] TASSC 24

PARTIES:  YOUNG, Wendy
  v
  YOUNG, Joan Miriam

FILE NO:  793/2011
DELIVERED ON:  16 April 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  20, 21 February 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Equity – Trusts and trustees – Evidence – Statute of Frauds – Statute not to be made instrument of fraud – House purchased in mother's name with mother's money – Common intention that property be held on trust for daughter.

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 (Tas), s60(2)(a).
Rochefoucauld v Boustead [1897] 1 Ch 196; Organ v Sandwell [1921] VLR 622, followed.
Di Pietro v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1995) 59 FCR 470, referred to.
Aust Dig Equity [1457]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  B R McTaggart SC
             Defendant:  D F M Zeeman
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Ogilvie Jennings
             Defendant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 24
Number of paragraphs: 23

Serial No 24/2014
File No 793/2011

WENDY YOUNG v JOAN MIRIAM YOUNG

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

16 April 2014

This case concerns a very unfortunate dispute between a mother and her daughter over the beneficial ownership of the house in which the daughter lives. The plaintiff, Wendy Young, is the daughter of the defendant, Joan Miriam Young. The property in question was purchased in the defendant's name in early 2002. The defendant paid the full purchase price with her own money, became the registered proprietor on completion of the purchase, and remains the registered proprietor. The plaintiff has lived in the house and been the occupier of the property ever since that purchase.
The plaintiff contends that she and her mother agreed before the purchase that her mother would purchase a house for her; that each of them intended that the plaintiff would be the beneficial owner of the property; that the property in question was chosen and purchased pursuant to that arrangement; that the defendant therefore holds the property upon an express trust for the plaintiff; and that that trust exists and is enforceable even though the defendant put nothing in writing as to the plaintiff's beneficial ownership of the property. On that basis, the plaintiff is seeking an order that the defendant transfer the property to her.
The plaintiff is also pursuing an alternative claim based on proprietary estoppel. She contends that the defendant made representations to the effect that she (the plaintiff) would be the beneficial owner and entitled to have the property transferred to her; that she was thereby induced to believe that she was the beneficial owner; that she acted to her detriment in reliance upon that belief; that the defendant knew and intended that she would act in reliance upon that belief; and that the defendant is therefore estopped from asserting title to the property.
The defendant did not give or adduce evidence. She contends that the evidence does not establish that she ever intended that her daughter was to…

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 Young v Young

Details

AGLC: Young v Young [2014] TASSC 24
Case: [2014] TASSC 24
Decision Date: 16 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Young v Young, the Family Court was tasked with determining the nature of a trust in relation to a property purchased in the mother's name. The dispute arose between the daughter, the plaintiff, and her mother, the defendant, regarding the ownership of a house. The daughter claimed that the house was intended to be held on trust for her, despite it being registered in her mother's name and financed by her mother's funds. The mother, on the other hand, argued that she had full ownership of the property.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the daughter could establish a common intention constructive trust over the property, despite the absence of a written agreement. The court needed to examine the principles of equity and the applicability of the Statute of Frauds, which requires certain agreements to be in writing to be enforceable. The court had to determine whether the circumstances constituted an exception to the statute, allowing an oral agreement to create a trust.

The court found that the daughter had established a common intention that the property was to be held on trust for her. It was held that the doctrine of equity would not allow the statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. The court recognised that while the property was purchased in the mother's name and financed by her, the common intention was that the daughter would benefit from the property. The court determined that the daughter's claim was not barred by the Statute of Frauds and that equity would not permit the statute to be used to defeat the daughter's claim to a beneficial interest in the property.

The court ordered that the property be held on trust for the daughter, recognising the common intention between the parties. This outcome ensured that the daughter's beneficial interest in the property was protected, reflecting the court's commitment to preventing the statute from being used to perpetrate a fraud.

Orders