An elderly couple who lent their daughter and her husband more than $135,000 to buy and renovate a series of homes have successfully won a court battle against their former son-in-law to repay the money after their daughter died of cancer.
Andrew and Robyn Mereniuk made three large loans to their daughter Louise and her husband Matthew Wilks between April 2006 and August 2017 so they could buy and renovate properties for themselves and their three daughters.
But the loan repayment applications came to an abrupt halt in August 2016 when Louise was diagnosed with bowel cancer. She died from the disease in January 2019.
Mr and Mrs Mereniuk launched legal action against Mr Wilks in November 2022 to try to recover their money after falling out with him over his affair with another woman in the six months before Louise’s tragic death, according to a judgment published in the New South Wales District Court.
Mr Wilks argued in court that he knew nothing about the loans, although he also claimed they were gifts made to his now deceased wife.
But Judge Judith Gibson described Mr Wilks as a “wholly unreliable witness” and awarded Mr and Mrs Mereniuk $135,269 in the outstanding sum.
Mr Wilks is understood to intend to appeal against the sentence.
The case highlighted the complicated legal issue of the “Bank of Mom and Dad” and whether payments to family members are considered gifts or loans, Judge Gibson said.
Andrew and Robyn Mereniuk made three large loans to their daughter Louise and her husband Matthew Wilks (pictured) between April 2006 and August 2017 so they could buy and renovate properties for themselves and their three daughters.
But the loan repayments stopped abruptly in August 2016 when Louise (pictured) was diagnosed with bowel cancer. She died from the disease in January 2019.
The saga began in April 2006 when Mr Mereniuk offered to buy materials and renovate the Baulkham Hills home his daughter shared with her husband.
“We can buy the material and you and Louise can pay us back when you can afford it,” Mereniuk recalled saying.
In total, they transferred $169,000, with the cost of purchased materials or borrowed money recorded on a spreadsheet.
‘Substantial repayments’ made by Mr and Mrs Wilks subsequently reduced this sum to $28,254.
A second loan of $76,000 was provided to help Mr and Mrs Wilks purchase a larger property in Kellyville, about 35 kilometres north-west of central Sydney in April 2012.
But a year earlier, in February 2011, Mr and Mrs Mereniuk had expressed “disappointment” that Mr and Mrs Wilks were spending too much.
“The $35,000 spread over three years means they are both spending about $12,000 a year more than they earn. Or they have thrown caution to the winds and are spending it as if it were their own,” Mereniuk wrote.
“The reason we loaned them the money in the first place was to help them both and it seems we have certainly succeeded in doing that as they have both taken advantage of it. The latter was not our intention or desire.”
Mr Mereniuk suggested they had spent $15,000 more than originally budgeted.
“Have you stopped budgeting? Does Matthew spend his income on himself? Does he smoke, drink, eat, etc.?” she wrote.
‘What were you two thinking, that you were going to return it and, if you did, in what time frame?’
She added: ‘I mentioned earlier that you spend $12,000 too much a year, which is about $250 a week. You two need to sit down and decide what can be eliminated and what can be reduced, otherwise you’ll both lose your home in the long run or need to downsize.
In February 2011, Mr. Mereniuk suggested that his son-in-law quit smoking because “this probably amounts to $30 or $40 a week.”
“We are not here to support you or save your marriage.”
Mr Mereniuk also suggested his son-in-law quit smoking because “this is probably about $30 to $40 a week.”
“We are not resentful nor are we calling for the full refund of the money. What we want, however, is the refund of the balance of the money in the two compensation accounts,” he wrote.
“We also want a commitment from both of them not to touch the withdrawal amount. If they cannot make that commitment, then it is best for them to withdraw the money and return it to us as well.”
Mr Wilks denied any knowledge of the transactions, although he also attempted to claim they were gifts for his now-deceased wife.
These seemingly contradictory arguments did not hold water for Judge Gibson, who accused him of being an “utterly unreliable witness, whose account of events was not merely implausible but at times deliberately false.”
“The defendant’s claim that he never knew how much he had in the bank or looked at his banking or financial records, but instead called Louise every time he wanted to make a purchase or withdraw money, is completely implausible, all the more so as he was at the time running a business which would have required regular access to the bank and consideration of banking records,” Judge Gibson concluded.
In 2015, Mr and Mrs Wilks decided to move to Tumbi Umbi on the New South Wales Central Coast.
They planned to sell their Kellyville property to fund the purchase, but then Ms Wilks’ cancer diagnosis in August 2016 “changed everything”.
Mr and Mrs Mereniuk say they advanced a total of $80,000 on the condition that when the Tumbi property was eventually sold, the full amount, plus the $80,000, would be repaid.
Mr. Wilks sold the property in December 2019, almost a year after his wife’s death.
In 2015, Mr and Mrs Wilks decided to move to Tumbi Umbi on the NSW Central Coast (pictured)
He kept the proceeds of the proceedings, “except for the sum of $154,000 which has been held in a trust account of a lawyer pending the outcome of these proceedings,” the ruling states.
Mr and Mrs Mereniuk are also understood to have unsuccessfully attempted to challenge Mr Wilks’ claim over his daughter’s superannuation at the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.
The ruling noted that both parties “not only had a financial interest in the outcome but also a degree of hostility motivating them.”
“The plaintiffs believed (correctly, as was later shown) that the defendant’s absence during the six months before Louise died of cancer was due to him having an affair with another woman,” Judge Gibson wrote.
It was revealed the grandparents “took on the role of parents” to their daughter’s children before her death after there were “problems in the marriage” between Mr and Mrs Wilks.
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the money had been in the form of a loan and not a gift.
“Plaintiffs were providing Defendant and Louise with financial assistance in the form of a series of separate loans for separate purposes, but as ‘the Bank of Mom and Dad,’ not as ‘the Mom and Dad Gift Shop,'” Judge Gibson wrote.
‘They expected repayment but at the same time took into account issues relating to love and affection; in particular, while Louise was dying of cancer and the marriage was clearly in trouble, they refrained from asking for funds in circumstances where I am satisfied there was an understanding that no further payments would be made until the Tumbi Umbi property was sold.’
But he acknowledged that “in the future, courts may find that the ‘Bank of Mom and Dad’ phenomenon can be interpreted differently.”
The ruling notes research by the Productivity Commission which found that “if Mum and Dad were a real bank, it would be Australia’s fifth to ninth largest mortgage lender”.
Asked for comment by the Daily Mail Australia on Thursday, Mr Wilks said he felt he had been “treated badly”.
“I can’t really comment on it at the moment, but I’m very interested in speaking to you later because I’ve been treated very badly, but at this stage I’m not prepared to make a statement,” he said.
(tags to translate)dailymail
