Coercive control used to dud woman out of property share

A judge has found a man’s controlling influence over his wife was used to the advantage of his daughter and her partner.

Frank Wilce’s influence over wife Jane was used to the advantage of his daughter and her partner, a court has ruled. (File picture)

A couple took advantage of a controlling husband’s influence over his wife to get her to sign over her share of the property where she had lived for 28 years, a judge has found.

Justice Thomas Bradley said Angela Wilce and Khalil Smith intentionally used Angela’s father Frank Wilce’s influence over his wife, getting her to sign away her only substantial asset.

Jane Wilce told a court just weeks before she signed, her husband told her if she did not agree to transfer the property to his daughter, he would end their marriage and she would be forced out of her home.

Justice Bradley said he found Jane Wilce’s testimony compelling and her detailed accounts of her husband’s abuse, told to medical professionals, as important pieces of evidence.

He said most women did not report domestic abuse or violence, particularly when the perpetrator was a current partner.

“Women subject to coercive control often stay in abusive relationships, lacking the confidence to leave and fearing the consequences if they were to do so,’’ Justice Bradley said in a judgment.

He said like many other women, Jane endured an ongoing pattern of behaviour aimed at controlling her.

“By his bullying, threatening and, on occasions, violent behaviour, Frank made Jane afraid of him,’’ Justice Bradley said.

Jane’s husband used a range to tactics to exercise power and control over her, he said.

“Perhaps the most disturbing evidence Jane gave was of finding a hammer on Frank’s dresser in their bedroom one evening in November 2018,’’ Justice Bradley said.

Jane said she returned the hammer to its proper place in a workshop near their house, only to find it back on the dresser on the next evening. Frank Wilce denied being involved.

Jane, 60, and Frank Wilce, who each had children from previous relationships, bought land at Barrine on the Atherton Tableland in 1989-90 and lived there after a house was built.

After the property was divided into two lots, one was given to Jane’s son as a gift, in 2010, and the couple lived on the other lot.

Frank Wilce, who suffered from ill health, wanted the land he and his wife owned to be transferred to his own children before he died.

The judge said Mr Wilce knew if he died his interest in the property would pass to Jane, which he told the Supreme Court was “not good’’.

“In giving his evidence, he referred to Jane as if she were a servant,’’ Justice Thomas said.

On November 27, 2018, Mrs Wilce’s GP made a note that she had been “recently put under pressure by Frank and his daughter to sign over ownership of their property to his daughter — feels manipulated to do so’’.

Mrs Wilce went that day to see her sick husband in Atherton Hospital, where Angela surprised her by presenting her with transfer documents, which she and Frank signed.

“On the evidence, I am satisfied that, by reason of many years of psychological, emotional and occasional physical abuse, Jane was in a position of special disadvantage with respect to any step that Frank insisted upon,’’ Justice Thomas said.

He said Angela and Khalil knew Jane had received no independent legal advice about the transfer and Angela knew of Frank’s influence over her stepmother.

He said Angela and her husband accelerated steps to obtain Jane’s signature on a transfer document after her father had a serious health setback.

“In this way they took advantage of the special disadvantage suffered by Jane. It was unconscientious of Angela and Khalil to do so,’’ Justice Bradley said.

Justice Bradley said Jane was not equal to protecting her interest in the property, and the court should protect her.

On May 19 he said although Angela and Khalil were registered proprietors of the property, because of their knowing use of undue pressure, Mrs Wilce could assert a personal equity against them.

The judge is yet to make final orders.