The mother of Australian pop star Vanessa Amorosi has been given two months to leave her home of two decades after a court ruled 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 included both women as owners.
One was a semi-rural property in Narre Warren in Melbourne’s south-east, while the second was his current residence in California.
The couple had a falling out in 2015 after Amorosi was forced to sell her first home in the United States because she could not pay the mortgage, later claiming she believed Robinson had been “very generous” with her money.
Her mother filed a countersuit, arguing that while she was happy to give up control of the California property, she believed the Narre Warren home was hers.
He had lived in the house for more than two decades.
Handing down the ruling on the singer’s 43rd birthday, Judge Moore found that Amorosi was entitled to take exclusive control of both properties purchased with her music royalties.
But the judge said Amorosi would have to pay Robinson nearly $870,000 in restitution.
The mother of Australian pop star Vanessa Amorosi has been given two months to leave her home of two decades after a court ruled the singer was entitled to full ownership of the property.
Amorosi launched legal action against Joyleen Robinson (pictured) in March 2021, seeking sole ownership of two properties held by a trust that included both women as owners.
He found that Ms Robinson had failed to convince him that the so-called “kitchen arrangement” had taken place – she claimed the two women had agreed that the house was theirs in 2001 on the condition that she would repay the initial purchase price if Ms Amorosi ever got into financial difficulties.
Ms. Robinson and her husband, Peter Robinson, transferred $710,000 into their U.S. mortgage in 2014.
For three weeks, lawyers for both sides tried to negotiate a way forward with the handover of the property, but returned to court last week to say no agreement had been reached.
Amorosi’s lawyer, Joel Fetter, told the court that the pop star would have to sell the Narre Warren home to pay his mother.
Judge Moore, who had warned a week earlier that if they couldn’t “figure out” a plan, he would take over, then turned to deciding how fair a process would affect his sentencing.
The case returned to the Supreme Court on Monday morning as Judge Moore detailed his orders.
He told the court Amorosi would be given full control over the Melbourne home after she took sole responsibility for a Westpac mortgage on her current home and released Ms Robinson and her husband, who were guarantors.
Within 60 days of that happening, Ms. Robinson would have to hand over possession of the property to Amorosi, Judge Moore said.
But the judge said Fetter convinced him to give Amorosi until March 31, 2025, to pay restitution to his mother, which would give him time to sell the Narre Warren home.
Interest on the restitution would continue to accrue until it was paid, the court was told.
At trial, Amorosi told the court he was unable to get an adequate answer after asking his mother in 2014 what had happened to all his money.
Narre Warren property at centre of dispute
Amorosi said she thought Mrs. Robinson (center) had been “very generous with my money.”
“I couldn’t get answers to what had really happened and why I was losing my home,” she said.
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 best interests and stopped actively managing her finances in 2011 when she moved to California.
She told the court she had created the companies and trusts because an accountant had advised them that would protect Amorosi.
The case will return to court in October when Judge Moore will hear arguments from both sides on how court costs should be paid.