A £2 million dispute over family property will be decided by the High Court if the parties cannot reach a settlement, after a judge refused a mother’s application to freeze the assets of her son and daughter-in-law.
Moya Montgomorie applied for a freezing order to prevent her son Jason Minns (pictured) from selling her home, worth £1 million, which she says is hers but is in the names of her son and his wife. Mrs Montgomorie claims her son agreed to sign over the house in part-payment of debts totalling £1 million, which she says were loaned to him over a number of years.
Mr Minns disputes the claims, saying any sums given to him by his mother were gifts, with the exception of one loan of £40,000.
Laura Tanguay, partner and head of home ownership disputes and TOLATA at Birketts LLP, said the case “bears all the hallmarks of a classic family property dispute” under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, where the legal title and the beneficial ownership are said to diverge.
“Although framed in emotive terms, the central issue is likely to be whether the claimant can establish a beneficial interest in the property held in her son’s name, either through a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel,” she explained.
“Much will turn on whether there was a sufficiently clear agreement that the property would be transferred to her, and whether her alleged financial contributions were made in reliance on that understanding.”
Although the pre-trial hearing contained emotionally heightened language, with the judge acknowledging the “awful family background” and noting “the son is calling the mother a serial liar and the mother is calling the son an arch-manipulator,” the decision would rest on documentary evidence, Tanguay said.
“Cases of this kind are highly fact-sensitive and often hinge on credibility, particularly where arrangements are informal and undocumented, as is frequently the case in family contexts.
“The court will need to determine whether the payments were loans, gifts, or part of a broader arrangement linked to the property.
“Ultimately, the outcome is likely to depend less on the parties’ characterisations of each other and more on the documentary evidence and the court’s assessment of what was actually agreed.”
In claim papers, barrister Helen Brander, representing Mrs Montgomorie, said Mr Minns had “exploited” his mother’s guilt following her divorce from his father for financial gain “throughout his adult life”.
“He has on many and varied occasions too numbers to particularise requested financial assistance from Moya by way of loans to assist with his and his wife’s costs of living and/or to use as liquid funds for investment… and Moya has on many and various occasions too numerous to particularise responded to those requests and has fulfilled them.”
In the written defence to the action, Lauren Kreamer, barrister for Jason Minns and his wife Stephanie, said: “They have at all times acted in good faith towards the claimants… It is expressly denied that loans or gifts totalling £600,000 were made by Moya.”
Of the dispute over ownership of the house, she added: “It is averred that the parties’ shared intention was that, if Moya and [husband] Dick were to reside at [the property], they would purchase that property from Jason and Stephanie, upon terms to be agreed between the parties.”
Arguing for a freezing order to prevent the disposal of assets pending resolution of the dispute, Ms Brander claimed there was a “real risk of dissipation” evidenced by a quick sale of property previously made by Mr Minns, allegedly for less than it was worth.
Refusing the application, Mr Justice Richard Smith said he was “not persuaded there’s a real risk of dissipation.”
The case will go to trial if a settlement cannot be reached.
