HYPOTHETICAL: A home for $1

AT 95, Mavis has no intention of slowing down. She still tends her prize-winning roses, knows every neighbour’s business and has lived in her home for 54 years.

Mavis’ only income is the aged pension and her home is by far her largest asset. Her nephew, Darren, regularly helps with shopping, appointments and the occasional battle with her TV remote.

After an argument with her nephew Bruce, Mavis becomes convinced Darren is the only relative she can rely on and executes a will leaving her entire estate to him.

Shortly after, Darren convinces Mavis to transfer her property to him now, rather than leaving it to him in her will. He promises she can live there for the rest of her life and says this will prevent Bruce from contesting her estate. Mavis reluctantly agrees and the property is transferred to Darren for $1.

Darren arranges for Mavis to see his long-time solicitor, whom she has never met. They speak alone for about 10 minutes and Mavis signs the transfer.

She is not told that Darren’s promise to let her remain in the home is not legally documented, nor is she advised what could happen if Darren sells, mortgages or loses his interest in the property.

Several months later, Mavis begins to regret the arrangement. She realises she no longer owns her home and has no substantial assets to fund her future needs.

Mavis obtains legal advice and commences proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking to have her ownership restored.

The Court found Mavis was at a special disadvantage and that the transaction was ‘grossly improvident’.

The defendant was ordered to transfer the property back to the plaintiff and to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings and all costs relating to the transfer.

Thank you to Rhiannon Beck for her assistance with this column.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email manny@tblaw.net.au.

This fictional column is not legal advice.