Vanessa Amorosi’s mum Joyleen Robinson to hand over home to pop star after court loss
Australian pop star Vanessa Amorosi’s mother has been given two months to leave her home of two decades after a bitter dispute with her daughter.
Australian pop star Vanessa Amorosi’s mother has been given two months to leave her home of two decades after court found the singer was entitled to full ownership of the property.
The Melbourne-born artist launched legal action against Joyleen Robinson 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.
The pair had a falling out in 2015 after Ms Amorosi was forced to sell her first home in the United States because she couldn’t meet the mortgage payments, later claiming she believed Ms Robinson had been “very generous” with her money.
Hey mother countersued, arguing that while she was happy to relinquish control of the California property 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 sole control of both properties purchased with her music royalties.
But the judge said Ms Amorosi would have to repay Ms Robinson almost $870,000 in restitution.
He found Ms Robinson had failed to convince him the so-called “kitchen agreement” occurred — she claimed the two women had agreed the home was hers in 2001 on the condition she would repay the initial purchase price if Ms Amorosi ever hit financial difficulty.
Ms Robinson and her husband, Peter Robinson, transferred $710,000 into her American mortgage in 2014.
For three weeks lawyers on both sides attempted to negotiate a way to proceed with the property handover, however returned to court last week to say no agreement had been reached.
Ms Amorosi’s lawyer, Joel Fetter, told the court the pop star would have to sell the Narre Warren home to pay back her mother.
Justice Moore, who had warned a week earlier that if they could not “get to grips” on a plan he would take over, then set about deciding on an equitable process to affect his judgment.
The case returned before the Supreme Court on Monday morning as Justice Moore outlined his orders.
He told the court Ms Amorosi would be given full control over the Melbourne home after she assumed sole liability of a Westpac mortgage on her current home and discharged Ms Robinson and her husband who were guarantors.
Within 60 days of this occurring, Ms Robinson would have to give possession of the property to Ms Amorosi, Justice Moore said.
But the judge said he was persuaded by Mr Fetter that Ms Amorosi be given until March 31, 2025, to pay restitution to her mother — allowing her time to sell the Narre Warren home.
Interest would continue to climb on the restitution until paid, the court was told.
At trial, Ms Amorosi told the court she couldn’t get an adequate answer after she asked her mother in 2014 what had happened to all her money.
“I couldn’t get the answers to what had really gone down and why I was losing my house,” she said.
Ms Amorosi said she believed Mrs Robinson had been “very generous with my money”.
Taking the witness stand, Ms Robinson said she had always acted in her daughter’s interest and stopped actively managing her finances in 2011 when she moved to California.
She told the court she had set up the companies and trusts because an accountant had advised them it would protect Ms Amorosi.
The case will return to court in October as Justice Moore will hear arguments from both parties as to how court costs should be paid.