Stankovic v Stankovic [2008] NSWSC 475

Stankovic v Stankovic [2008] NSWSC 475

The court found that 2 Tea Tree Way was beneficially David Stankovic's property and that the actual intention of all parties was for David to be entitled to the proceeds of the property and liable to indemnify Milovan and Milka in respect of the line of credit. Milovan was not entitled to draw upon the line of credit for his own separate benefit, and withdrawals made by him must be reimbursed to David. The prior consent orders should not be reopened. Accordingly, offsetting sums, judgment was entered against Milovan for the net amount due to David.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings (accounts/inquiry) / Judgment After Contested Hearing (account and Entitlement Issues)
Outcome
Judgment for the first defendant (David Stankovic) with orders as declared.
Legal Topics
['resulting Trust' 'presumption of Advancement' 'beneficial Entitlement' 'lines of Credit' 'family Property Arrangement' 'accounts and Inquiries']
['equity' 'property Law'] ['resulting Trust' 'presumption of Advancement' 'beneficial Entitlement' 'lines of Credit' 'family Property Arrangement' 'accounts and Inquiries']

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

Equity Proceedings (accounts/inquiry) / Judgment After Contested Hearing (account and Entitlement Issues)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether 2 Tea Tree Way, Kellyville, was beneficially the property of David Stankovic or Milovan Stankovic' 'Whether Milovan Stankovic was entitled to draw upon the line of credit for his own purposes' 'Whether payments to Craftwork Carpentry were for the development of 2 Tea Tree Way' 'Whether Milovan was entitled to surplus or profits from the sale of 2 Tea Tree Way' 'Whether prior orders should be re-opened to allow further claims on the Bella Vista property']

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that 2 Tea Tree Way was beneficially David Stankovic's property and that the actual intention of all parties was for David to be entitled to the proceeds of the property and liable to indemnify Milovan and Milka in respect of the line of credit. Milovan was not entitled to draw upon the line of credit for his own separate benefit, and withdrawals made by him must be reimbursed to David. The prior consent orders should not be reopened. Accordingly, offsetting sums, judgment was entered against Milovan for the net amount due to David.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first defendant (David Stankovic) with orders as declared.

Orders

  • ['Declare first defendant (David Stankovic) was liable to indemnify plaintiff (Milovan Stankovic) and second defendant (Milka Stankovic) in respect of liability under the Suncorp-Metway line of credit and, subject thereto, was beneficially entitled to 2 Tea Tree Way and its proceeds.' 'Order that the funds in court...