A financial dispute between parents and their daughter has escalated, with the parents suing their daughter and her husband for unpaid rent and to evict them from a property they purchased. The couple, Alan and Wendy Briggs, bought a home in Swanbourne, a Perth suburb, in 2014 for $1.1 million when their daughter, Breanna Lane, and her family were struggling to find rental accommodation.
The Briggses took out a $1.2 million loan for the property, with the understanding that Ms. Lane and her husband, Benjamin Lane, would pay $4,300 per month to live there. While the Lanes believed these payments were contributing to their eventual ownership of the home, the Briggses maintained that the arrangement was a tenancy. This fundamental disagreement came to a head when the Briggses decided to sell the property earlier this year.
Ms. Lane initiated civil action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in July to prevent the sale, asserting an informal agreement that the home would become hers after she made monthly repayments. Her parents countered that no such agreement existed and that the property needed to be sold due to the impending end of the 12-year interest-only loan period. The court ordered the property's sale, noting that neither party could afford the projected increase in monthly mortgage repayments from $5,500 to $10,500 in December. The judge, however, indicated Ms. Lane could pursue a claim for a portion of the sale profit.
In a turn of events, the Briggses have now filed their own civil claim in the Perth Magistrate's Court. According to court documents, this claim, lodged on August 20, seeks to recover four months of unpaid rent and terminate the existing lease agreement. The parents stated they would face "undue hardship" if the property settlement did not proceed, citing increased mortgage payments and associated selling costs. They had previously informed the Supreme Court that they risked becoming penniless by 2032 if forced to cover the remaining loan amount.
Ms. Lane's legal action in July followed a conversation in October 2014 where she expressed concerns about her family's rental situation to her father. She claimed her father refused to act as a guarantor for a property in her name, instead offering to buy a home for her to pay off. The Briggses, however, stated that while their daughter agreed to pay $4,300 monthly, her payments were often irregular, ranging from nothing to as little as $334, resulting in an arrears of $5,300. They also reported providing Ms. Lane with over $10,000 monthly for approximately a year to cover expenses, including rent, totaling about $122,000.
The dispute reportedly began in 2024 when Mr. Briggs informed his daughter that the property was his and that she was a tenant. He later stated his intention to sell the home in 2025. The Briggses accepted an offer on the property in April 2026, with property records suggesting its value may have nearly doubled to around $2 million. Ms. Lane ceased payments on July 9, though her parents claim rent stopped in April. The Briggses maintained to the Supreme Court that there was a "fundamental misunderstanding" regarding ownership and that they never agreed for their daughter to eventually own the property.
Ms. Lane calculated her payments between December 2014 and April 2026, totaling $296,700 and $253,462 respectively, with an additional $19,080 for home improvements. She also utilized a government COVID-19 program to withdraw $10,000 from her superannuation to maintain payments. Justice Strk's Supreme Court judgement acknowledged that Ms. Lane had raised a serious issue for trial but characterized her claim as "not a strong one," directing that the dispute be resolved in separate proceedings. The judge ordered that any sale profits be paid into a court fund pending the resolution of Ms. Lane's potential claim. Ms. Lane has not yet initiated these formal proceedings against her parents. Meanwhile, the Briggses' claim for unpaid rent was adjourned until September 16.