Published: | Updated:
An elderly widow who needed to sell the family home to pay for aged care facility bills has been forced to battle her son in court for the title.
Elpiniki and Antonios Tsakmakis purchased the Northcote property, just north of Melbourne, in 1965 and brought up three children there.
Decades later, a dispute over its ownership spilled into the Supreme Court of Victoria amid claims Elpiniki, 85, promised it to her youngest son George.
The $1.96million property on Beavers Road had been rented out between 1988 and 2011 when George and his family moved in.
The court heard Elpiniki asked George and his family to move out in 2023 as she wished to sell it.
By then her husband had begun living at Heritage Northcote Aged Care Facility, which involved initial expenses of a $600,000 bond plus daily costs for his care.
When George refused to move out, he was sent a letter by his mother's lawyer informing him that his mum wished to sell the property as she could no longer afford to keep it.
It was then George claimed that his parents had promised him that he would inherit the property and could live in it until then if he and his family moved in and he renovated it.
The disputed property in Northcote
'Elpiniki says that she and Antonios permitted George and his family to live there temporarily, on condition that he paid all outgoings, so that he and his wife could save for a deposit to purchase their own home,' the court heard.
The matter landed in the Supreme Court just two days before Antonios died.
The court heard George spent about $30,000 of his savings and $10,000 in borrowed funds on renovations including a new kitchen, bathroom, carpets, wardrobes, heating system, recladding, and a picket fence, claiming he was promised the property would form part of his inheritance.
However, his mother claimed George lost his job in 2017 and was unable to pay the outgoings.
Elpiniki told the court George did not pay for anything related to the property, with the exception of paying for gas and electricity usage.
'The last time I spoke to George was when I went to see him, and took the land tax bill, to tell him that there was - it was a lot, and I couldn't pay for it,' she told the court.
'I told him that I wasn't able to pay that amount of money. "Your father is sick and I'm sick".
'And then they told me, "We want the house, we can't leave now, we want to stay here". And then my daughter‑in‑law said, "You need to give us the house before you die".'
Antonios Tsakmakis died just before the matter hit the Supreme Court
By that stage it was May 2023 and Elpiniki had been diagnosed with stage four breast cancer, for which she was receiving treatment.
The court heard Elpiniki claimed George had asked her to give him the house twice or three times himself.
Jim Tsakmakis, George's older brother, told the court George had constantly called their parents to ask to move into the property in 2011.
He understood there was no promise of inheritance.
Instead, there was a clear temporary arrangement allowing George’s family to live there rent-free on the condition that he paid all outgoings so his parents were not out of pocket.
Justice Claire Harris ruled in favour of Elpiniki, declaring there was no clear and unequivocal promise by Elpiniki or her late husband that George and his family could live in the property indefinitely or inherit it.
She ordered George and his family to vacate the property, indicating George would likely be required to pay market rent from mid-2025 onwards.
'I am not satisfied that Elpiniki or Antonios made a clear and unequivocal representation or promise to George that he or his family could live in the property for as long as they wished or that he would inherit the property,' she ruled.
'The arrangement was, on the evidence, a limited and conditional one.'
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。