Who needs to understand trusts? As Vanessa Amorosi discovered – absolutely everybody

In lengthy and heated dispute before Justice Moore of the Supreme Court of Victoria, singer Vanessa Amorosi – who rose to fame after a stellar performance at the Sydney 2000 Olympics – has discovered the importance of documenting agreements in relation to property ownership, even when the other party is your mother.

In Amorosi v Robinson [2024] VSC 466 Ms Amorosi brought an application against her mother seeking control of two properties purchased with the earnings from her pop career. One property, in Narre Warren, is occupied by Ms Amorosi’s mother, and the second, in Los Angeles, is owned by a trust of which Ms Amorosi’s step-father held control.

The Narre Warren property had been purchased using funds held by a trust established using the royalties from Ms Amorosi’s singing career, and a bank loan. Ms Amorosi’s mother later paid (at least, she alleged) $650,000.00 towards that loan.

Ms Amorosi’s mother claimed:

• that she was entitled to retain the Narre Warren property on the basis that she would pay her daughter $650,000.00 upon request;
• in the alternative, she claimed she was entitled to keep the property on the basis of an adverse possession claim; that she had occupied the property exclusively since 2005, that it had been abandoned by Ms Amorosi and she was therefore entitled to retain possession.  
• as a final alternative, restitution for the monies paid by her for the property; this claim effectively sought repayment of the sum of $650,000.00 paid by her towards the bank loan plus interest.

It was for Ms Amorosi’s mother to positively prove the existence of the alleged agreement that allowed her to keen the Narre Warren property, and/or her adverse possession claim.

Both claims failed, but the Court found that she was entitled to restitution for monies paid for Ms Amorosi’s benefit.

In making his decision, His Honour Justice Moore considered historical evidence including heated emails between Ms Amorosi and her mother in relation to the property. Absent a written agreement, the evidence of the two women in relation to what had (or had not) been agreed was central to the dispute. The evidence traversed the relationship between mother and daughter and Ms Amorosi’s career, including private emails and required both parties to give oral evidence of conversations had many years prior.

Ultimately, the Court found that Ms Amorosi was entitled to:

1. orders declaring that the Los Angeles property was held upon trust for her, and placing her in control of that trust;
2. orders that the Narre Warren property was held on trust for her, subject to Ms Amorosi assuming responsibility for its mortgage.

She was, however, ordered to pay restitution to her mother in the sum of $650,000.00 plus interest. This order was made on the basis that Ms Amorosi’s mother had paid money towards the Narre Warren mortgage at her request, from which she would now benefit.

The decision highlights the need for clear and documented agreements in relation to property ownership, even when the parties are immediate family, ideally with independent legal advice.

‍