A legal dispute has arisen between a daughter and her parents in Western Australia after she claimed an informal agreement existed for her to eventually own the $1.1 million Perth home she paid over $550,000 towards over 11 years. Breanna Lane took her parents, Alan and Wendy Briggs, to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, alleging they had agreed the home would be hers if she made monthly payments.
According to Ms. Lane, a former commercial property business owner now working at the University of WA, her parents agreed to help her and her husband in 2014 when they faced financial hardship. The retirees borrowed $1.2 million to purchase the Swanbourne property, with the understanding that their daughter and son-in-law would make monthly payments of $4,300 to reside there. Ms. Lane stated she believed these payments were contributing to ownership.
However, her parents contended that she was a tenant paying rent and that no written or verbal agreement for ownership existed. The judgment noted that the Briggs family stated Ms. Lane's payments were irregular, sometimes absent, and occasionally as low as $334 per month, leading to a $5,300 arrears by mid-2024. Additionally, the parents claimed to have provided Ms. Lane with over $10,000 per month for approximately a year, totaling about $122,000, to assist with her expenses.
Ms. Lane's legal action stemmed from her father's assertion in 2024 that the property belonged to him and that she was a tenant. He later informed her of his intention to sell the home. Ms. Lane attempted to prevent the sale by placing an absolute caveat on the property title.
Justice Larissa Strk of the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that while Ms. Lane had raised a serious question for trial, her claim was not strong. The court ordered the removal of the caveat, allowing the sale to proceed. The judge cited the parents' financial circumstances, including rising mortgage repayments that were projected to increase significantly by December 2026, and Ms. Lane's failure to offer to take over the mortgage as factors favoring the sale.
The court found that the balance of convenience supported selling the property and preserving any disputed interest through the sale proceeds. Justice Strk noted that Ms. Lane might have a claim to a portion of the sale profits, estimated at around $800,000 after accounting for the outstanding loan, settlement costs, and capital gains tax. She was ordered to initiate formal proceedings against her parents within 21 days to resolve this claim.
The profits from the sale are to be held in a court fund pending the determination of Ms. Lane's further claims. The family's conflicting accounts of the initial arrangement, supported by some text messages from Mr. Briggs that alluded to Ms. Lane having cash to invest or cover shortfalls after the sale, form the basis of the ongoing legal proceedings.