Real Housewives of Melbourne star’s ex-partner tries to evict her from CBD apartment
THE ex-partner of Real Housewives of Melbourne star Pettifleur Berenger is trying to evict her from his multimillion-dollar CBD apartment — using laws originally designed to deal with squatters and unwanted tenants.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
THE ex-partner of Real Housewives of Melbourne star Pettifleur Berenger is trying to evict her from his multimillion-dollar CBD apartment in a bitter split.
Melbourne developer Frank Palazzo has asked the Supreme Court to order his ex out so that he can sell the penthouse property they shared within the five-star Westin Hotel development for $7.2 million.
The court heard Mr Palazzo has assets of up to $170 million and applied to the court late on Tuesday to have Ms Berenger evicted, using laws originally designed to deal with squatters and unwanted tenants.
PETTIFLEUR BERENGER QUITS RHOM
RHOM STAR AND EX-PARTNER AT ODDS OVER PROPERTY SALE
PETTIFLEUR: REAL HOUSEWIVES SCARIER THAN MARCO
The court was told if Ms Berenger is forced to leave she has nowhere else to live.
Ms Berenger, who appeared on two seasons of the Foxtel reality program, moved into the property in 2012 when the pair were a couple and has continued to live there with her two sons, 15 and 18, since.
In a sensational claim, the court also heard the sale — due to be settled on Thursday — was a “fix” designed to defeat any claim Ms Berenger may have on the property, which Mr Palazzo purchased in 2011 for $4.9 million.
Timothy McEvoy, QC, for Ms Berenger suggested the “curious” sale to a friend after the pair’s split was not legitimate because it was “not at arm’s length” and his client was pursuing her legal right to maintain occupancy.
In any case, Dr McEvoy suggested the sale could not proceed today due to a lack of full disclosure by Mr Palazzo, who he suggested had failed to inform the purchaser of a “collaboration deed” with Metro trains regarding a station development occurring beneath it, and had not yet obtained the approval of the body corporate.
The court heard the couple were at odds over whether they had ever been in a de facto relationship, with Ms Berenger claiming their partnership lasted a decade, while Mr Palazzo maintains it was less than the two years that would entitle her to a property settlement, although he continued to under the same roof until he moved out on August 21.
When Mr Palazzo sold the apartment to a friend in April, Ms Berenger placed a caveat on the property, which she later lifted when the pair agreed proceeds of any sale would be placed in an account for both parties until their separation was finalised.
Mr Palazzo’s barrister Nigel Evans argued that Ms Berenger’s refusal to vacate the apartment was inconsistent with her commitment under the deed she signed when her caveat was lifted to facilitate any sale.
Mr Evans told the court that Ms Berenger had no claim on the apartment, and even if she did, it would not entitle her to possession.
Concerned an on-the-spot judgment could be unjust or incomplete Associate Justice Nemeer Mukhtar adjourned the matter until later this month.