Dolan v Dolan: Mother-daughter legal stoush erupts over Toorak Crescent, Lorne property

A legal stoush has erupted between a mum and daughter with a “strained” relationship over an architect-designed Lorne home.

A woman who has lived in the same Lorne house for nearly two decades is set to fight her own daughter in the Supreme Court for the right to remain in her home.

The daughter, Shannan Dolan, wants her mum, Christine Dolan, booted from the Toorak Crescent home, which was built on land bought nearly 25 years ago, so it can be sold.

Court documents reveal that Christine, aged 46 at the time, spent $52,500 on the Lorne land in 1998, with a plan to subdivide it between her family and another family.

Her 23-year-old daughter Shannan put $20,000 towards the land purchase.

But much of what followed remains in dispute, including which of the two did more work organising an architect and builders, how much work on the house cost and from whose pocket more money was drawn, how proceeds would be split between the pair in the event of a future sale, and which legal rights existed between them.

Nevertheless, in the early 2000s, the estate had been transferred to Shannan, the property had been subdivided, and the home built.

The home on Toorak Terrace in Lorne. Picture: Google Maps

Christine, Shannan, and another family member moved into the home.

Shannan, however, moved out in 2006 because of her “strained relationship” with Christine, alleging in court documents her mother had become unwell and abusive towards her.

In 2021, Christine lodged a notification of her potential claim over part of the property after, she said, Shannan claimed at least half of it and was going to sell.

The next month, Shannan sent her mum a letter demanding she vacate the house.

Christine, now 69, has lived at the property for almost two decades and continues to do so.

In her application to court, Shannan wanted the property sold and the proceeds used to pay the mortgage and other property fees, with 36 per cent of the remainder to be given to her.

Her mother would receive $20,000, and anything left would go into a trust account.

None of those orders were made by the court.

“I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence to give rise to a serious question in this regard,” Associate Justice Ierodiaconou’s analysis read.

“It is undisputed that Christine contributed purchase monies to the parent title, which was then subdivided, and the property is held in the name of Shannan.

“Whether there was an agreement between them regarding the nature of Christine’s interest is in dispute.

“That factual dispute cannot be resolved here. It should be resolved at trial.”

It was determined that, before such a trial, Christine’s claim on the property should be maintained and she should not be removed as a tenant, and no orders should be made regarding the property’s sale.

A statement from the law firm representing Shannan Aitken Partners said: “It is not our policy nor appropriate to comment on the matter which remains before the Court”.