Hypothetical by Manny Wood published in the Coffs Coast News Of The Area on 15 January 2021.
Peter, 75, is suffering from poor eyesight and lives alone on a large rural property.
Peter informs an acquaintance, David, that he has eye surgery scheduled and that he is concerned about his future and his finances.
They agree that Peter will sell David 50% of the property for $400,000 and that David can move into one of the two houses on the property.
David prepares a document purporting to record the sale of 50% of Peter’s property to David. Peter signs the document and accepts a $100 deposit. He does not obtain legal advice.
When Peter recovers from the eye surgery, he is angered when he discovers that the document that he signed states that the purchase price is only $300,000 and that settlement is in 12 months’ time.
David moves onto the property and Peter serves him with a notice to vacate.
Peter commences action in the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the document be set aside for unconscionability and an order that David be removed from the property.
David relies on the written document and further submits that he has improved the property by cleaning, landscaping and maintenance. David claims that at the time of the hearing, he had worked thousands of hours on the property and that he is entitled to $100,000 in compensation for improving the property.
The Court states that Peter was “duped” and that David was aware of Peter’s vulnerability. The Court views the $100 deposit as farcical and ultimately accepts Peter’s evidence that David bullied his way onto the property.
The Court sets aside the agreement and orders that David vacate the property. The Court orders that Peter pays David compensation of only $100, being the return of the deposit.
If YOU would like a particular issue addressed please email Manny at manny.wood@ticliblaxland.com.au or call him on (02) 6648 7487.
