Australian singer Vanessa Amorosi plans to sell the house her mother has lived in for two decades after a court ruled she was entitled to full ownership.
The Absolutely Everybody artist sued Joyleen Robinson for sole ownership of two properties last year after the pair had a falling out nearly a decade earlier over what had happened to her music earnings from the early 2000s.
One was Ms Amorosi’s current home in California, while the second was a semi-rural Narre Warren property in Melbourne’s south-east, where Ms Robinson had lived since 2001.
Last month, Supreme Court Justice Steven Moore ruled that Ms. Amorosi was entitled to the property but would have to pay her mother nearly $870,000 in restitution.
The case returned to Judge Moore on Wednesday afternoon after three weeks of negotiations between lawyers on both sides over how to carry out his sentence failed.
“The discussions have not resolved the matter, and we appreciate His Honor meeting late to discuss it now,” said Amorosi’s attorney, Joel Fetter.
Mr Fetter said his client would need to sell the Narre Warren property to settle the restitution debt, but her mother had so far refused to allow estate agents access.
He told the court his proposed plan was to order that Ms Amorosi be allowed to sell the property but to introduce a stay on restitution to allow time for the sale to take place.
Joyleen Robinson (pictured centre in October 2023) claimed her daughter bought the property for her. On Wednesday it was claimed Ms Robinson will not allow estate agents access to sell it.
To “sweeten the deal,” Fetter said, he would allow Robinson to remain in the home for 90 days instead of the usual 14-day period.
“There’s a quid pro quo there that, in my opinion, benefits Ms. Robinson, rather than being evicted in 14 days… she has 90 days,” he said.
Ms. Robinson’s attorney, Daniel Harrison, presented an alternative plan that includes Ms. Amorosi canceling the mortgage and obtaining a new one that would remove her mother and stepfather as guarantors.
He then suggested that Ms. Robinson could place an “equitable lien” on the property until the money was paid to her.
“We believe the only appropriate course of action is to effectively require Ms. Amorosi to assume sole responsibility for all liabilities,” he said.
“We’re simply saying that an equitable levy is the appropriate way to address that.”
Judge Moore thanked the parties and adjourned the trial, saying he needed time to consider the submissions.
Ms. Amorosi filed the lawsuit in March 2021, seeking sole ownership of a trust that included both women as owners.
Narre Warren property at centre of dispute
She claimed the properties were purchased using her music royalties and now believed her mother had been “very generous” with the millions of dollars she earned.
In emotional testimony, she told the court she believed her mother had taken control of her finances when she was a teenager.
Ms Robinson counterclaimed, claiming the Narre Warren home was purchased for her and that the couple had reached an agreement in the kitchen of their previous family home that if the singer ever ran into financial difficulties, Ms Robinson would refund the initial $650,000 purchase price.
In 2014, he paid $710,000 from the sale of his previous home to pay off Ms Amorosi’s $1.2 million California mortgage, claiming the agreement had been honored.
Ms. Amorosi rose to stardom after headlining the 2000 Sydney Olympics (Photo: Instagram/ @toddevision)
But Judge Moore concluded that the “kitchen deal” had never taken place and that Robinson should be reimbursed the $650,000 plus $219,486 in interest.
During the trial, Ms Robinson said she always acted in her daughter’s best interests and followed the advice of an accountant recommended to her by Ms Amorosi’s manager.
The case will return to court at a later date.
Further debate over who should pay the court costs will take place later this year.
