Equitable Ownership Dispute: Are Implied Trusts and Contributions Sufficient to Alter Registered Property Interests and Compel a Sale?
Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case CHIARIERI & ANOR v MORPHETT [2025] SASC 162, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.
Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes
Basic Information:
Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of South Australia (Civil)
Presiding Judge: The Honourable Justice Stein
Cause of Action: Equity – Trusts and Trustees – Implied Trusts (Constructive & Resulting), Real Property – Partition of Land – Compensation for Improvements, Sale in lieu of partition.
Judgment Date: 26 September 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Equitable ownership
Keyword 2: Constructive trust
Keyword 3: Resulting trust
Keyword 4: Proprietary estoppel
Keyword 5: Co-ownership disputes
Keyword 6: Partition or sale
Background:
This case involves a dispute over equitable ownership interests in a property owned by the mother (the Respondent) and her daughter and son-in-law (the Applicants), who are a married couple now separated. The Applicants, who hold a registered one-tenth share each in the property, sought a declaration that the mother held a larger portion of her registered eight-tenths share on implied trust—either as a constructive trust or a resulting trust. This claim arose from alleged promises made by the mother in exchange for the Applicants’ financial assistance in retaining her family home during her matrimonial property proceedings. Additionally, the Applicants sought an increase in their equitable interest due to their contributions to improvements made to the property during their joint occupation.
Core Disputes and Claims:
The legal focus of the dispute centered on the precise nature and extent of the beneficial interests in the property.
The Applicants’ primary claim was for a declaration of a common intention constructive trust, asserting that a common intention existed for them to hold an equal one-third interest each in the property with the mother, based on her representations and their subsequent detrimental reliance. They also sought an increase in their equitable ownership to reflect the value of their contributions and improvements to the property.
The Applicants’ alternative claim was for a declaration of a resulting trust, arguing that the mother held a portion of her registered interest on trust for them, proportionate to their financial contribution to the property’s acquisition through their mortgage liability.
The mother contended that no specific percentages or “equal shares” were promised, only that the Applicants’ names would be on the title, which she considered a gift. She disputed the extent and quality of their alleged improvements and resisted any alteration to the registered interests or a sale of the property.
Chapter 2: Origin of the Case
The genesis of this litigation can be traced back to a series of events and shifting family dynamics, culminating in an irretrievable breakdown of trust and communication. In December 2017, the daughter and son-in-law, anticipating the birth of their first child, moved into the mother’s property at 118 Brookman Road, Meadows (referred to as “the Property”). At this time, the mother was deeply embroiled in matrimonial property proceedings with her former husband. She conveyed to her daughter and son-in-law profound distress at the prospect of losing the Property, a home she had designed and built and where she had raised her children. She even expressed that she would take her own life if forced to leave.
During these emotionally charged discussions, the mother sought financial assistance from her daughter and son-in-law to help her retain the Property. According to the Applicants, the mother promised that if they assisted with the finance, they would be registered on the Certificate of Title in equal one-third interests alongside her. They further claimed that the mother also suggested they could live at the Property, rent out the son-in-law’s home in Murray Bridge (the “Guerin Road property”), and if they made the existing granny flat on the Property habitable, the mother would move into it as their family grew.
In reliance on these representations, the daughter and son-in-law altered their life plans. From February to May 2018, they prepared the Guerin Road property for lease and subsequently moved permanently into the mother’s Property with their newborn. In April 2018, the daughter swore an affidavit in her mother’s matrimonial proceedings, detailing her willingness to assist. By November-December 2018, the mother, daughter, and son-in-law jointly applied for and secured a mortgage of $522,860 from AFG Home Loans. In April 2019, legal interests in the Property were formally transferred, with the daughter and son-in-law each registered as tenants in common with a one-tenth (10 percent) ownership interest, leaving the mother with the remaining eight-tenths (80 percent) interest.
Over the next two years, the Applicants undertook various works on the granny flat and the main house and contributed to household expenses. However, the first decisive moment of conflict arose in July 2020 when, during an argument, the mother revealed to the daughter that their registered interest was only 10 percent each, a fact the Applicants claimed to be unaware of until then. This revelation caused considerable shock and anger. Despite this, the parties jointly refinanced the mortgage with the Commonwealth Bank in December 2020, after which the daughter and son-in-law began contributing to half of the mortgage repayments.
The relationship further deteriorated in late 2021 when the daughter, then pregnant with her third child, asked the mother to move into the granny flat, consistent with their earlier discussions. The mother flatly refused, leading to an irretrievable breakdown in their relationship. In April 2022, the daughter and son-in-law moved out of the Property and returned to the Guerin Road property, ceasing all contributions. Shortly thereafter, the mother presented documents for them to sign away their interest in the Property, which the Applicants refused, choosing instead to pursue their claims in court.
Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes
Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:
The Applicants primarily relied on their oral testimony regarding the mother’s verbal representations made in late 2017. They asserted that the mother explicitly promised “equal ownership” or “one-third” interests to each of them if they helped with her matrimonial finance, alongside a promise for her to relocate to the granny flat as their family expanded. Their actions of preparing their own property for lease, moving into the mother’s property, and undertaking joint liability as co-mortgagors for AUD $522,860 were presented as direct detrimental reliance on these promises. The daughter’s affidavit from the matrimonial proceedings, while referring to “respective financial contributions,” was argued to be a document she signed without thorough review, prepared by the mother’s lawyer, and therefore not truly reflective of their agreed-upon equal shares. An expert valuation report was tendered, estimating that the Applicants’ improvements had increased the property’s value by AUD $35,000, supporting their claim for enhanced equitable interest.
Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:
The mother conceded that she was in distress in late 2017 and asked for the Applicants’ help with the mortgage, promising that their “names would go on the title.” However, she adamantly denied mentioning any specific percentages or using words like “equal shares.” She maintained that the 10 percent interest registered for each Applicant was a “gift” and not based on any agreed proportional contribution. The mother challenged the extent and quality of the Applicants’ improvements, arguing that many were performed without her consent, were substandard, and that she also contributed financially and with labour to the property’s maintenance and the granny flat. Crucially, she highlighted the daughter’s matrimonial proceedings affidavit, which stated that their interests would be “apportioned in accordance with their respective financial contributions,” directly contradicting the Applicants’ current claim of equal shares. Her position was that the Applicants had no entitlement beyond their existing registered shares, or at most a “small amount” for direct expenses, and she resisted any orders for sale or partition.
Core Dispute Points:
The central dispute revolved around the precise terms of the verbal agreement made in late 2017. Was there a clear promise of “equal” or “one-third” ownership, or merely a vague assurance of “names on the title”? The reliability of the Applicants’ recollections, especially the son-in-law’s concession about the word “equal,” and the daughter’s contested understanding of her own sworn affidavit, formed critical points of contention. The Court had to reconcile these conflicting accounts with the objective evidence of financial contributions, mortgage liability, and the eventual registered interests. A further dispute was the quantifiable value of the Applicants’ improvements and whether these contributions warranted an increase in their equitable interest, especially given the mother’s counter-claims of her own contributions and the property’s overall market value appreciation.
Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits
In the Australian legal system, affidavits serve as sworn statements of fact presented to the court, playing a crucial role in establishing the factual matrix of a case. This case vividly illustrates how the strategic preparation and subsequent scrutiny of an affidavit can profoundly impact the credibility and arguments of the parties involved.
Central to the dispute was the daughter’s matrimonial proceedings affidavit, sworn on 12 April 2018. This document, filed in her mother’s divorce proceedings, stated that the daughter and son-in-law had agreed to assist her mother financially to retain the Property and would be registered on the title “to be apportioned in accordance with their respective financial contributions.” This statement was in stark contrast to the daughter’s current claim that the agreement was for “equal” or “one-third” ownership.
During the trial, the daughter maintained she did not thoroughly read the affidavit before signing it, stating she was young, inexperienced, had a three-month-old baby, and was simply doing what her mother asked. She denied receiving draft emails of the affidavit from her mother’s lawyer. The mother, however, initially claimed no knowledge of the affidavit’s content but later, after evidence was re-opened, admitted to being involved in its logistics, including driving the daughter to the Justice of the Peace and even making a handwritten correction (changing “bottles” to “cans” regarding her former husband’s alcohol consumption). Her changing testimony on this point affected her credibility.
The strategic intent behind the Judge’s procedural directions regarding the affidavits was to rigorously test the veracity and consistency of each party’s account. By allowing the re-opening of evidence to include the mother’s lawyer’s file notes and emails, the Court sought to objectively ascertain the circumstances of the affidavit’s preparation and the daughter’s true understanding of its contents at the time it was sworn. The Judge’s scrutiny revealed inconsistencies, particularly regarding the mother’s shifting recollections and the daughter’s lack of attention to the document’s specific wording. This highlighted a significant discrepancy between the daughter’s earlier sworn statement and her later claim of equal ownership, forcing the Court to critically evaluate the reliability of oral testimony against documentary evidence.
Chapter 5: Court Orders
Prior to delivering the final judgment on the equitable interests, the Court issued specific procedural directions to ensure a comprehensive and fair hearing, particularly in light of new evidence and the self-represented status of the Respondent.
The key procedural order involved allowing the mother’s application to re-open her case. This direction permitted the introduction of additional documents, primarily emails to and from her solicitor and an invoice related to her matrimonial proceedings. This decision was made on the condition that these documents could have been deployed during earlier cross-examination. The purpose of this order was to enable the Court to more fully assess the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the daughter’s matrimonial proceedings affidavit, which had become a central point of contention regarding the parties’ common intention.
There were no other specific procedural arrangements or interim orders detailed in the judgment prior to the final hearing concerning the disposition of the property, as the focus remained on determining the equitable ownership interests first.
Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic
The trial in this matter presented a compelling and often tense confrontation between oral testimonies and documentary evidence, intricately woven with emotional narratives from the parties involved. The Court, adopting an objective third-party perspective, meticulously sifted through conflicting accounts to discern the factual truth.
The cross-examination of the son-in-law proved particularly revealing. While he consistently maintained his understanding of “equal ownership,” he candidly conceded that the precise word “equal” might not have been uttered by the mother during their initial discussions due to the passage of time. He further admitted to trusting the mother and not thoroughly reviewing the property transfer documents. This willingness to make reasonable concessions, despite their potential detriment to his case, impressed the Court regarding his honesty, though it raised questions about the reliability of precise recollections.
The daughter’s cross-examination was characterized by short, often unelaborated answers, with frequent use of “correct” or “disagree.” She firmly asserted that “equal shares” were discussed, yet conceded that specific percentages were never mentioned. Her testimony regarding the matrimonial proceedings affidavit was heavily challenged; she maintained she did not receive draft emails from her mother’s lawyers and did not carefully read the document before signing it. The palpable tension between the mother and daughter during this exchange underscored the emotional investment and fractured nature of their relationship.
The mother’s testimony, especially after the re-opening of her case, underwent significant scrutiny. Initially vague about the distress-filled conversations in late 2017, she became resolute in denying any mention of “equal shares” or specific percentages. However, her credibility was impacted by inconsistencies regarding the matrimonial affidavit. She initially denied involvement in its preparation, but later admitted driving the daughter to sign it and even making a handwritten correction, initially claiming it was the daughter’s hand, then accepting it was hers, and finally stating they both agreed to the change. Her concession that she could not have obtained the mortgage without the Applicants’ assistance was a critical admission, directly contradicting her stance that they had no significant interest.
The expert valuer, Wayne Smith, provided an assessment that the Applicants’ improvements added AUD $35,000 to the property’s value. However, his testimony revealed that he relied on instructions regarding who performed the work and did not itemise or verify all costs or labour. He acknowledged that he did not investigate potential structural issues in the shed, and the marketability impact of minor cosmetic issues was low.
The Court held, acknowledging the impact of emotional distress and the passage of time on witness reliability, the weight of evidence favored an inferred common intention rather than a definitively expressed one:
“In reaching my findings of fact on the critical question of whether a particular share of ownership interest was promised by Barbara, I have paid close attention to other facts which are not in dispute and those facts from which inferences can be drawn.”
This statement underscored the Court’s reliance on objective facts and logical inferences. Regarding the contentious matrimonial proceedings affidavit, the Court critically assessed the mother’s denial of involvement:
“I do not accept that Barbara’s solicitors would have prepared the affidavit, engaged with Laura and then filed the affidavit in Barbara’s matrimonial proceedings without Barbara’s instructions to do so.”
“I consider it inherently unlikely that Barbara was not involved in any way in its preparation or giving instructions about it. The reference to People’s Choice Credit Union in the affidavit combined with Daniel’s evidence he thought Barbara was initially seeking finance from that credit union tended to support the proposition put to Barbara in cross-examination that she gave instructions for the affidavit.”
The Court rejected the mother’s claim of non-involvement, inferring that the affidavit’s preparation reflected her instructions at the time, particularly given the specific financial details aligning with the Applicants’ initial evidence. This objective chain of evidence, especially the mother’s need for finance and the Applicants’ subsequent mortgage liability, proved determinative in establishing an implied trust.
Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court
The Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and legal principles, issued a nuanced final judgment addressing the equitable interests in the property and providing directions for further proceedings regarding its disposition.
The Court declared that the mother holds 10.75 percent of her registered 80 percent interest in the Property on constructive trust for each of the Applicants. This amounts to a total of 21.5 percent of her registered interest held on trust for the Applicants.
The Court explicitly ruled that the Applicants were not entitled to any further increase in their ownership interest or any monetary allowance on account of the improvements made to the Property.
Consequently, the true beneficial interests of the parties at law and in equity were determined to be 20.75 percent to each of the Applicants and 58.5 percent to the mother.
Given that the Applicants’ combined interest in the Property (41.5 percent) did not equal or exceed one moiety (50 percent), Section 70 of the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA), which would have mandated a sale, was deemed inapplicable. The Court will hear further from the parties to determine whether a sale of the Property, as opposed to partition, would be more beneficial to all interested parties under the discretionary power of Section 69 of the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA). This further hearing will also consider allowing the mother time to make inquiries about raising funds to purchase the Applicants’ share.
Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory
The judgment in CHIARIERI & ANOR v MORPHETT [2025] SASC 162 meticulously navigates the complexities of family property disputes where informal promises and subsequent actions create interwoven equitable interests. The Court’s reasoning provides a robust framework for understanding how legal principles are applied to reconcile conflicting narratives and establish a just outcome.
Special Analysis:
This case underscores the inherent difficulties in family property disputes where agreements are often informal and clouded by emotional entanglement. The Judge’s pragmatic approach to finding an “inferred common intention” when explicit terms were disputed is a notable aspect. The Court focused on the purpose of the Applicants’ actions (to help the mother retain the property) and the liability they incurred, rather than strictly on potentially unreliable verbal recollections of precise percentages. This highlights a trend towards substantial justice over strict literalism in such complex familial arrangements. The refusal to grant additional allowance for improvements, despite the valuer’s assessment, also demonstrates the Court’s reluctance to engage in complex, indeterminate accounting when overall equitable adjustments can achieve practical equality.
Judgment Points:
An uncommon ruling in this case is the method by which the Applicants’ beneficial interest was quantified. Instead of accepting the Applicants’ claim of an “equal one-third” share (33.33% each) or strictly valuing their out-of-pocket contributions to the purchase price, the Court determined their interest based on their liability as co-mortgagors for AUD $522,860 as a proportion of the property’s value at the time (AUD $840,000). This calculation yielded a 41.5% contribution to the financing, divided equally between the two Applicants (20.75% each). This approach emphasizes the legal commitment undertaken rather than just cash flow, offering a distinct lens for assessing equitable contributions.
Legal Basis:
The Court grounded its decision in well-established equitable principles, particularly the common intention constructive trust and proprietary estoppel, recognizing their interplay.
The core statutory provisions considered were Section 69 and Section 70 of the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA), which govern the partition and sale of co-owned land. Section 70, which mandates a sale if parties holding a moiety (50 percent) or more request it, was found not to apply because the Applicants’ combined interest of 41.5 percent fell short of this threshold. This redirected the determination to Section 69, which grants the Court discretionary power to order a sale if it appears more beneficial than partition, considering the nature of the property and interests of all parties.
Evidence Chain:
The Court constructed a compelling chain of evidence:
1. Mother’s Distress and Need: The mother’s significant distress about losing her home in late 2017 and her inability to secure sufficient finance independently.
2. Promise of Title: The mother explicitly suggested that if the Applicants became co-mortgagors, their names would be added to the title.
3. Detrimental Reliance: The Applicants’ actions of preparing their own property for rent, moving to the mother’s property, and incurring joint and several liability for a substantial mortgage (AUD $522,860) constituted significant detrimental reliance. The mother conceded she could not have raised the money without their assistance.
4. Matrimonial Proceedings Affidavit: The daughter’s affidavit, stating interests would be “apportioned in accordance with their respective financial contributions,” was crucial. While the daughter claimed not to have read it thoroughly, the Court inferred it reflected the mother’s instructions and an understanding of proportional contributions at that time.
5. Unconscionable Conduct: The mother’s subsequent failure to honour her promise regarding the granny flat and her initial attempt to claim the Applicants had no beneficial interest were deemed unconscionable given her reliance on their assistance.
6. Valuation: The property’s value at the time of the AFG mortgage application (AUD $840,000) provided the baseline for calculating proportional contributions.
7. Improvements: The Applicants’ labour and expenditure on improvements were acknowledged but not quantified for an additional ownership allowance, primarily due to lack of certainty regarding precise contributions and the relatively small impact compared to overall market value increases.
Judicial Original Quotation:
The Court’s logic in determining the extent of the implied trust is best captured in this key passage:
“Where the parties have a common intention to create proprietary interests in property, without specifying the precise share, the conclusion which best gives effect to the parties’ intentions will be favoured. That intention can be inferred from the parties’ conduct at the time. On the basis of the facts I have found and the inferences which arise from them, including the common ground between the parties, I consider the conclusion which best gives effect to the parties’ intention at the time of the promises, and the reliance upon them, was that Daniel and Laura were to be registered on the title in shares representing their financial contribution to the scheme that enabled Barbara’s retention of the Property.”
This statement was determinative because it allowed the Court to move beyond the Applicants’ unproven claim of a specific “one-third” share, and instead, craft a remedy based on the objectively inferred intention derived from their actual financial contribution in the context of the scheme to save the property.
Regarding the applicability of presumptions like resulting trust, the Court held:
“Evidence of actual intention to grant a proprietary interest proportionate to the relative financial contribution renders resort to the presumptions of advancement, and of resulting trust, otiose as those presumptions will give way to intention based on inference drawn from all of the evidence.”
This clarifies that where an actual intention can be inferred from the evidence, there is no need to rely on legal presumptions which function to fill evidentiary gaps.
On the matter of compensation for improvements, the Court provided this rationale for denying further allowance:
“Taking all these matters into account, I consider the maxim equality is equity would not be reflected in a further allowance to Daniel and Laura on account of the works to which they contributed, but for which they were not solely responsible. As the evidence cannot firmly establish, firstly, that Barbara is unjustly benefitting, and secondly, that the $35,000 increase in value attributable to the improvements is the result of disproportionate expenditure and labour of Daniel and Laura, it satisfies equity to treat as equal the contributions of all parties to the Property’s improvements, which, in the circumstances, justifies no additional allowance to Daniel and Laura.”
This passage was critical in denying the Applicants a further increase based on improvements, highlighting the practical difficulties of precise quantification and the need to achieve overall practical equality given other benefits and contributions.
Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:
The Applicants partially failed in their primary claim for a “one-third” or “equal” ownership interest. This was primarily due to the Court’s finding that their oral evidence on this specific point was unreliable, influenced by the passage of time and emotional factors. The daughter’s own matrimonial proceedings affidavit, which referred to shares being “apportioned in accordance with their respective financial contributions,” directly contradicted her later claim of equal shares and proved difficult to overcome. The son-in-law’s concession that the word “equal” may not have been explicitly used further weakened this specific claim.
The mother, while prevailing against the “equal shares” claim and successfully resisting a further allowance for improvements, largely failed in her broader contention that the Applicants had no beneficial interest at all. Her credibility was undermined by inconsistent testimony, particularly regarding her involvement in the daughter’s matrimonial affidavit and her shifting explanations for not honouring the promise to move to the granny flat. Her concession that she could not have obtained the mortgage without the Applicants’ assistance was a critical blow to her claim that their contributions were negligible or purely a gift.
Reference to Comparable Authorities:
* Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137: This case provided guidance on the imposition of a constructive trust to remedy unconscionable conduct in pooling resources, emphasizing that while equality is the starting point, adjustments are made to achieve practical equality and avoid injustice based on disproportionate contributions.
* Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101: A foundational proprietary estoppel case, this authority informed the Court on fashioning remedies to avoid injustice, potentially granting monetary compensation in lieu of a proprietary interest, especially when third-party interests or other complexities make direct title transfer inappropriate.
* Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242: Provided the principles for resulting trusts, defining “purchase price” to include mortgage liability, and distinguishing it from subsequent mortgage repayments. It also outlined how presumptions of resulting trust can be rebutted by actual intention.
* Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505: Reinforced principles of proprietary estoppel, particularly the requirement for clear detrimental reliance induced by the promise and the unconscionability of resiling from it.
* Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation (2022) 275 CLR 37: This recent High Court decision further clarified that the presumption of a resulting trust is rebutted by evidence of the actual intention of the parties at the time of purchase, as inferred from their words and conduct.
Implications
1. Document All Agreements: In any family or informal property dealings, ensure all agreements, especially regarding ownership shares, contributions, and future living arrangements, are clearly documented in writing. Verbal agreements, though legally binding in equity, are notoriously difficult to prove and are subject to the frailties of human memory and emotional bias.
2. Understand Legal Documents: If asked to sign any legal document, particularly affidavits or property transfer forms, always read them thoroughly and seek independent legal advice. Signing a document without understanding its full implications can severely undermine future claims.
3. Liability vs. Payment: Be aware that incurring a legal liability (e.g., as a co-mortgagor) is considered a financial contribution to the purchase price in equity, distinct from actual out-of-pocket mortgage repayments. This distinction can significantly impact the determination of beneficial interests.
4. Equitable Relief is Discretionary: Courts of equity aim for practical justice, not necessarily literal enforcement of every promise. The remedy will be tailored to avoid injustice to all parties, considering all contributions (financial and non-financial), benefits received, and the overall context of the relationship.
5. Weigh Emotional Factors Carefully: While distressing personal circumstances can motivate promises and actions, they can also cloud recollection during litigation. Ensure independent and objective evidence supports your factual claims, especially when emotional narratives might sway testimony.
Q&A Session
1. What is a “constructive trust” in practical terms?
A constructive trust is a legal tool imposed by courts of equity to prevent unfairness or “unconscionable conduct.” In practical terms, it means that even if legal ownership of a property is held by one person, a court might declare that they hold a portion (or all) of that property for the benefit of another person, if it would be unjust for the legal owner to deny that other person’s beneficial interest. This often arises when a promise was made, and someone acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise.
2. Why did the Court not grant the applicants a “one-third” ownership share?
The Court found that while there was a common intention for the applicants to have a proprietary interest, there was not enough reliable evidence to confirm an explicit promise of “equal one-third” shares. Recollections were inconsistent, and a prior affidavit from the daughter contradicted this claim. Instead, the Court inferred an intention for the shares to reflect the applicants’ financial contribution to the “scheme” that allowed the mother to retain the property, which was primarily their liability as co-mortgagors relative to the property’s value. This resulted in a determination of 20.75 percent for each applicant.
3. What is the significance of the “matrimonial proceedings affidavit” in this case?
The matrimonial proceedings affidavit was highly significant because it was a formal sworn statement by the daughter (one of the applicants) made prior to the dispute. It stated that the applicants’ interests would be “apportioned in accordance with their respective financial contributions.” This directly contradicted the applicants’ later claim of “equal shares.” Despite the daughter’s argument that she hadn’t read it carefully, the Court inferred that the affidavit largely reflected the mother’s instructions and an understanding of proportional contributions at that time, making it a powerful piece of evidence against the applicants’ primary claim.
Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines
- Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: Property Law – Equitable Co-Ownership Dispute (Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Proprietary Estoppel) in a Family Context involving Partition or Sale.
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment on equitable ownership interests; Interlocutory Judgment on the disposition of the property (partition or sale), as further hearings are required. -
Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
Relevant for this case: ⑤ Property, Construction and Planning Law (specifically general equitable principles for property) and Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution.
Equitable Principles for Property Ownership:
Constructive Trust (Common Intention/Proprietary Estoppel):
- Common Intention: Must demonstrate a common intention or understanding between the parties that the applicant was to have a beneficial interest in the property. This can be expressed verbally or inferred from the conduct of the parties. It is not always necessary to establish a specific share, but rather that some proprietary interest was intended.
- Detrimental Reliance: The applicant must have acted to their detriment in reliance on that common intention or promise. This detriment can include financial contributions (e.g., mortgage liability, payments for improvements), non-financial contributions (e.g., labour, services), or altering life plans (e.g., moving, foregoing other opportunities). The reliance must be a significant factor in the applicant’s actions.
- Unconscionability: It must be established that it would be unconscionable for the legal owner to deny the applicant’s beneficial interest given the common intention and detrimental reliance. This element underpins the equitable intervention.
- Remedy: The Court will fashion a remedy to avoid injustice. This may include a declaration of beneficial ownership or a monetary payment in lieu of a proprietary interest, especially if circumstances (e.g., third-party interests, ongoing occupation) make a direct transfer of title impractical or unfair.
Resulting Trust:
- Contribution to Purchase Price: Arises when two or more people contribute to the purchase price of property, but the legal title is not transferred in shares proportionate to their contributions.
- Presumption: Equity presumes that the legal title holder holds the property on resulting trust for the contributors in proportion to their financial contributions. Incurring liability under a mortgage is considered a contribution to the purchase price.
- Rebuttal of Presumption: This presumption can be rebutted by evidence of the actual intention of the parties at the time of purchase. This intention must be objective (inferred from words or conduct), not subjective or uncommunicated.
- Presumption of Advancement: This is a specific type of presumption that can rebut a resulting trust. It arises in certain relationships (e.g., husband to wife, parent to child) where it is presumed that a transfer of property was intended as a gift or advancement, meaning no resulting trust arises. However, this presumption can also be rebutted by evidence of actual intention.
Equity of Contributions (Improvements):
- No Obligation for Contribution: Generally, a co-owner making capital improvements cannot compel another co-owner to contribute while co-ownership subsists, absent an agreement.
- Allowance on Sale/Partition: In a suit for partition or sale, a co-owner who made improvements that increased the value of the property is entitled to an allowance. This is to prevent the other co-owner from unfairly benefiting from the increased value without accounting for the expenditure.
- Limit of Allowance: The allowance is capped at either the actual outlay for the improvements or the amount by which the improvements enhanced the property’s value (or sale price), whichever is less. It is not a right to recover the full cost if the value increase is less.
Partition or Sale (Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) ss 69, 70):
- Section 69 (Discretionary Sale): The Court may direct a sale of the property and distribution of proceeds (instead of division) if it appears “more beneficial for the interested parties.” This is a discretionary power, considering factors like the nature of the property, number of interested parties, and economic/non-economic considerations (e.g., emotional attachment to home). The onus is on the party requesting the sale.
- Section 70 (Mandatory Sale): The Court shall direct a sale if parties interested to the extent of one moiety (50 percent) or more in the property request it, “unless it sees good reason to the contrary.” This is a presumptive right to sale if the threshold is met.
- Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
In property and family matters, equitable doctrines provide crucial avenues for relief when statutory or common law remedies are inadequate.Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
- Promise or Representation: The mother’s repeated assertions that the Applicants would receive an interest on the title, and her promise to move to the granny flat, served as the clear representations.
- Detrimental Reliance: The Applicants unequivocally acted to their detriment by altering their living arrangements, leasing out their own home, and incurring significant financial liability as co-mortgagors.
- Unconscionability: It would be unconscionable for the mother to resile from these promises, having gained substantial benefit (retaining her home) from the Applicants’ detrimental reliance.
- Result Reference: Even without a written contract, Equity may “estop” the other party from going back on their word, compelling a remedy that satisfies the equity arising from the reliance.
Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
- Benefit at Expense: The mother received the benefit of retaining her property and securing necessary finance, largely at the Applicants’ expense by way of their mortgage liability and initial contributions. Retaining this benefit without recognising the Applicants’ proportional interest would be against conscience.
- Result Reference: The Court declared a constructive trust over a portion of the mother’s legal interest, demonstrating how equitable principles are used to declare beneficial interests in an asset to prevent unjust retention of benefit.
- Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
Regular Thresholds:- Moiety Rule (Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 70): The hard threshold for a presumptive right to sale is ownership of 50 percent or more of the property interest. The Applicants’ combined beneficial interest of 41.5 percent fell short of this.
- Discretionary Sale (Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) s 69): This section provides a discretionary pathway for sale, even if the moiety threshold is not met. The Court must be satisfied that a sale would be “more beneficial” than partition for the interested parties, considering various factors.
Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
- Broad Interpretation of “Beneficial” (s 69): The Court’s discretion under section 69 is not limited to purely economic benefit. While economic factors are primary, emotional attachment to the property, length of residence, and the breakdown of relationships can be relevant considerations in determining what is “more beneficial.” This provides an exceptional channel for compelling a sale even if the strict legal ownership percentages do not meet the higher threshold.
- Opportunity for Buy-Out: The Court’s willingness to hear further from the parties regarding a buy-out option for the mother demonstrates flexibility to achieve a fair outcome that respects the mother’s long-standing connection to the property while ensuring the Applicants receive their equitable due.
Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.
Conclusion
This case exemplifies the intricate nature of family property disputes in Australian law, particularly where informal agreements intersect with significant financial commitments. The Court’s judgment underscores the paramount importance of clear, documented agreements, even within trusted family relationships. The application of constructive trust principles, informed by inferred common intention and detrimental reliance, demonstrates equity’s role in preventing unconscionable conduct when legal formalities fall short. While the pursuit of a just remedy requires navigating complex evidentiary challenges, particularly regarding the reliability of recollections, the legal system strives to achieve practical equality and fairness for all parties involved.
Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.
Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia (CHIARIERI & ANOR v MORPHETT [2025] SASC 162), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.
Original Case File:
👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.