Maybe. Depends on circumstance around your leaving. I'd imagine your argument is you were forced from the home.
Hi Rod,
Thanks for your on going replies, greatly appreciate them.
It's complicated regarding the matters surrounding the dispute which led to us leaving the property.
Essentially it comes down to life long resentments that the MIL held against her daughter, can all be proven by also very subjective.
We chose to step away to allow time and space for relationship considerations and to not cloud this in an already emotionally stressful time with matters of property rights.
We had met all the obligations that were placed on us, we had fulfilled every financial requirement diligently and with consideration. And from that perspective, we believed that what we had achieved was secure against the promise and agreement that existed. One which was never revoked or changed at any time during discussions over dispute matters.
So not physically forced so to speak but based on the emotional turmoil and conflict it was impossible to remain.
Bottom line is that we had fulfilled the agreement, this has been acknowledged by the FIL, he has rationalised in writing what the payments were for, how and what they were measured against, along with all the contributions attached to ownership responsibilities, payment of insurances, rates, improvements and renovations, and maintenance.
And yet according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 these costs should have been the responsibility of the Lessor which is the position that he is now claiming in declaring that we only rented.
Hence my approach under Part Performance, as we can clearly validate the understanding that we relied on at the onset of the agreement. And not only what we relied on but what they accepted and allowed us to believe based on that understanding.
And according to the High Court of Australia and their rulings on Part Performance, we then need to ensure Full Performance, that is to prove that the agreement that existed can be defined as a contract for exchange under Australian Contract Law.
So given all the admissions made by the PIL (Partents in Law) I believe that in the first instance we can easily prove that a contract existed.
And by their very own admissions that this contract was fulfilled and the outcomes of it were independent to the dispute that occurred. And that no outcomes attached to that event have any influence on the fact that we had a share in the property as Tenants in Common.
No objections, positions or claims that they present based on outcomes from that event negate what was already executed according to the agreement that Part Performance can fully evidence existed and had been fulfilled.
But what I don't know is what comes first? Logically I would suspect that we first need to prove that a contract existed, that an exchange took place for a consideration, and we can do this.
Secondly to neutralise or demonstrate that any counter claims associated with the dispute are irrelevant to the contract which had been fulfilled. Because it is based on these claims that the PIL are justifying the withholding of what we are entitled to.
Biggest problem I have is trying to explain this to them without getting bogged down in their constant you said this arguments, hence wanting to remove any relevance in regards to the dispute so that we can move away from petty objections based on misconceptions or deliberate distortions of comments made.
Anyway, thanks again.
