Vanessa Amorosi: Delay in pop star’s property transfer after court win over mum Joyleen Robinson

Orders to force Australian singer Vanessa Amorosi’s mum to give up control of a property trust to her daughter have been delayed.

Plans for Australian pop star Vanessa Amorosi’s mum to hand over control of two properties have been delayed as lawyers continue to negotiate terms.

Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Steven Moore ruled a supposed “kitchen agreement” between Ms Amorosi and her mother, Joyleen Robinson, never happened.

The Melbourne-born artist launched legal action against her mother in March 2021, seeking sole ownership of two properties held by a trust that listed both women as owners.

One was a semirural Narre Warren property in Melbourne’s southeast, while the second was her current residence in California.

Ms Robinson countersued, saying while she was happy to relinquish control of the California property – if Ms Amorosi took over the mortgage – she believed the Narre Warren home was hers.

She had lived in the home for more than two decades.

Delivering his judgment on the singer’s 43rd birthday, Justice Moore found Ms Amorosi was entitled to take full control of two properties purchased with her music royalties.

But the judge said Ms Amorosi would have to repay Ms Robinson almost $870,000 in restitution.

Vanessa Amorosi took her mother to court to regain control of two properties. Picture: NewsWire / Nicki Connolly

Earlier this month, a judge ruled the properties should be transferred back to the pop star. Picture: Instagram /@toddevision

Ms Amorosi's mum has been ordered by a court to hand over control of two properties, including this Narre Warren North home. Picture: Google Maps

On August 8, Justice Moore gave both parties two weeks to work together to draft orders that would affect his judgment in a “manageable” way.

But the case returned to the Victorian Supreme Court on Wednesday, as Ms Amorosi’s barrister Joel Fetter said “discussions have broken out” but no agreement had been reached.

He told the court both parties were requesting a week to see if they could “come to an agreement”.

Justice Moore agreed, but warned if they could not “get to grips” on the property handover, he would make the orders himself.

“If they can’t agree on those arrangements, my task is to make orders to give effect to the judgment,” he said.

“I encourage parties in their constructive dialogue to come to grips with a manageable arrangement.”

The case will return to court next Wednesday.

Ms Robinson’s case rested on a claim the mother and daughter made an agreement in 2001 that the home was purchased for Ms Robinson.

She claimed if Ms Amorosi ever ran into financial difficulties she would repay the original $650,000 purchase price.

Evidence tendered during the trial showed Ms Robinson and her husband, Peter Robinson, transferred $710,000 from the sale of their previous home to pay down Ms Amorosi’s $1.2m California mortgage in 2014.

Justice Moore agreed Ms Robinson should receive restitution for this payment, ordering Ms Amorosi to pay her mother $650,000 plus $219,486 in interest.

Joyleen Robinson (in pink) claimed Ms Amorosi purchased the home for her. Picture: NewsWire / David Crosling

Emotions ran high in the judge-only trial last October, as the court was told the two women fell out in 2015.

Ms Amorosi said things came to a head when she was forced to sell a home near Los Angeles when she was told she couldn’t meet the repayments.

“I knew I was going to lose the property. There was a lot of turmoil going on and I couldn’t get the answers of why,” she told the court.

“I asked her (Mrs Robinson) to show me where the money had gone … (She said) I spent it all and that I should come home and get to work.”

Ms Amorosi claimed she now believed her mother had taken control over her finances as a teenager and had been “very generous” with the millions of dollars she earnt in the early 2000s.

The singer was catapulted into stardom at 18 with her debut 1999 single Have a Look, which earned her a spot performing at the Sydney Olympic Games.

“Boyfriends were enemies … she was to be the only one there with the right intentions, and I believed it,” Ms Amorosi told the court through tears.

Mrs Robinson, on the other hand, told the court she always acted in her daughter’s interest and was following the advice of an accountant Ms Amorosi’s manager had recommended.

“My daughter and I were best friends, there were never any worries about money … I loved her and still love her – that’s the heartbreaking part,” she said.