A legal battle has erupted between a daughter and her parents over a Perth home, with the daughter claiming an informal agreement to purchase the $1.1 million property after making substantial payments, while the parents maintain she was merely a tenant.
Breanna Lane initiated civil action against her parents, Alan and Wendy Briggs, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. She alleged that an agreement made in 2014 stipulated that the Swanbourne home, purchased by the parents on her behalf, would become hers if she made monthly repayments. The parents, however, assert that Ms. Lane was a rent-paying tenant with no agreement for eventual ownership.
Ms. Lane stated that in 2014, facing financial hardship, she approached her parents for assistance. According to her account, her father initially refused to act as a guarantor for a property in her name. Instead, he agreed to purchase a home in his name, with the understanding that Ms. Lane would cover the mortgage payments, eventually leading to her ownership. The Briggses borrowed $1.2 million to acquire the three-bedroom house, and Ms. Lane and her husband began making payments the following month.
Court documents reveal that Ms. Lane calculated 69 monthly payments between December 2014 and August 2020, totaling $296,700. She also utilized government COVID-19 programs to withdraw $10,000 from her superannuation to maintain these payments. From September 2020 to April 2026, she claims to have paid an additional $253,462, identified in bank statements as 'mortgage' payments. Furthermore, she reported paying $19,080 between 2015 and 2022 for home improvements and security measures.
The dispute escalated in 2024 when Mr. Briggs informed his daughter that the property belonged to him, that she was a tenant, and that a lease agreement should be established. The following year, he communicated his intention to sell the home.
Justice Larissa Strk noted conflicting accounts from both parties regarding the arrangement. The parents contended that Ms. Lane's payments were rent and that there was no written or verbal agreement for her to own the property. They also presented diaries and claimed no record of a meeting in 2014 where Ms. Lane alleged an eviction discussion. Mr. Briggs also pointed to bank transfer descriptions that sometimes read 'rent' and sometimes 'mortgage.'
According to the parents' testimony, Ms. Lane experienced further financial difficulties in mid-2024. They stated they provided her with over $10,000 per month for approximately a year, totaling about $122,000, to cover her expenses on the condition that she continued to pay rent and demonstrate her ability to secure future rental accommodation. The parents also highlighted that the property was financed with an interest-only mortgage, which was set to increase significantly by December 2026, potentially leaving them in a difficult financial position by 2032 if they had to cover the remaining debt alone.
Ms. Lane attempted to place an 'absolute caveat' on the property title to prevent its sale. However, Justice Strk ordered the removal of the caveat, ruling that the balance of convenience favored selling the property and preserving any disputed interest through the sale proceeds. The judge acknowledged that Ms. Lane might have a claim to a portion of the sale proceeds, estimated to be around $800,000 after the mortgage, costs, and taxes. Ms. Lane was ordered to initiate formal proceedings within 21 days to determine any additional claims, with the profits to be held in a court fund until resolution. The property was reportedly accepted an offer in April 2026, with its value potentially having doubled to approximately $2 million.