Carmen Ho v Lorenz Derek Austin Ebert [2015] NSWSC 1468

Carmen Ho v Lorenz Derek Austin Ebert [2015] NSWSC 1468

Ms Ho did not establish any caveatable interest in the Burwood property. Her evidence showed no financial contribution to the property, which Mr Ebert had acquired before the marriage, and the only demonstrated basis for her claimed interest was an alleged entitlement to a Family Law Act property settlement, which does not create a caveatable interest. The alternative allegation concerning waste of proceeds of another property was unsupported by evidence and in any event did not disclose a caveatable interest. The summons was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Real Property Caveat Proceeding / Summons for Extension of Caveat or Leave to File a Fresh Caveat
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['torrens System' 'caveats' 'caveatable Interest' 'family Law Act Property Settlement' 'summons Claiming Final Relief']
['real Property' 'family Law' 'equity'] ['torrens System' 'caveats' 'caveatable Interest' 'family Law Act Property Settlement' 'summons Claiming Final Relief']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Real Property Caveat Proceeding / Summons for Extension of Caveat or Leave to File a Fresh Caveat

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's pending or proposed claim for a property settlement under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) gave her a caveatable interest in the defendant's Burwood property." 'Whether the summons for extension of the caveat was defective because the caveat was not in evidence and the summons claimed no final relief.' 'Whether allegations about waste of proceeds of sale of another property disclosed a caveatable interest in the Burwood property.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Ho did not establish any caveatable interest in the Burwood property. Her evidence showed no financial contribution to the property, which Mr Ebert had acquired before the marriage, and the only demonstrated basis for her claimed interest was an alleged entitlement to a Family Law Act property settlement, which does not create a caveatable interest. The alternative allegation concerning waste of proceeds of another property was unsupported by evidence and in any event did not disclose a caveatable interest. The summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed.' "Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the proceedings."]