An aged couple who loaned their daughter and her husband over $135,000 to purchase and renovate a sequence of houses have efficiently received a courtroom battle towards their former son-in-law to pay again the cash after their daughter died of most cancers.
Andrew and Robyn Mereniuk made three giant loans to their daughter Louise and her husband Matthew Wilks between April 2006 and August 2017 in order that they may buy and renovate properties for themselves and their three daughters.
However any requests for mortgage repayments got here to an abrupt halt in August 2016 when Louise was recognized with bowel most cancers. She died from the illness in January 2019.
Mr and Mrs Mereniuk launched a authorized case towards Mr Wilks in November 2022 to attempt to recoup their cash after falling out with him as a result of he had an affair with one other girl within the six months earlier than Louise’s tragic dying, based on a judgement revealed within the NSW District Courtroom.
Mr Wilks argued in courtroom that he knew nothing of the loans, whereas additionally claiming they had been presents made to his now-deceased spouse.
However Choose Judith Gibson described Mr Wilks as a ‘wholly unreliable witness’ and awarded Mr and Mrs Mereniuk $135,269 for the excellent cash.
It’s understood that Mr Wilks intends to launch an attraction towards the judgment.
The case highlighted the vexed authorized subject of the ‘Financial institution of Mum and Dad’ and whether or not funds to relations are thought of presents or loans, Choose Gibson mentioned.
Andrew and Robyn Mereniuk made three giant loans to their daughter Louise and her husband Matthew Wilks (pictured) between April 2006 and August 2017 in order that they may buy and renovate properties for themselves and their three daughters
However any mortgage repayments got here to an abrupt halt in August 2016 when Louise (pictured) was recognized with bowel most cancers. She died from the illness in January 2019
The saga started in April 2006 when Mr Mereniuk supplied to purchase materials and renovate the Baulkham Hills dwelling his daughter shared together with her husband.
‘We are able to buy the fabric and also you and Louise will pay us again when you’ll be able to afford it,’ Mr Mereniuk recalled saying.
They transferred a complete of $169,000, with the price of supplies purchased or cash loaned recorded in a spreadsheet.
‘Substantial repayments’ made by Mr and Mrs Wilks later lowered this sum to $28,254.
A second mortgage of $76,000 was superior to assist Mr and Mrs Wilks purchase a bigger property in Kellyville round 35km north-west of Sydney’s CBD in April 2012.
However a yr earlier than that, in February 2011, Mr and Mrs Mereniuk had expressed their ‘disappointment’ that Mr and Mrs Wilks had been overspending.
‘The $35,000 over three years implies that you each are spending round $12,000 a yr greater than you two earn. Or, you’ve thrown warning to the wind, and are spending it prefer it was your individual,’ Mr Mereniuk wrote.
‘The explanation that we lent you the cash within the first place was that can assist you each out and it seems that we’ve got definitely achieved that in that you simply each have helped yourselves to it. The latter was not our intention nor need.’
Mr Mereniuk prompt they’d spent $15,000 greater than they initially budgeted for.
‘Have you ever two stopped budgeting? Is Matthew spending what he earns on himself? Smokes, drink, lunches and many others.?’, he wrote.
‘What had been you two pondering, that you simply had been going to repay it, and should you had been, in what time-frame?’
He added: ‘Earlier I discussed that you simply overspent by $12,000 a yr which suggests roughly $250 per week, You two want to sit down down and nut out what could be eradicated and what could be lowered in any other case you two will lose your home in the long term or you will have to downsize.
In February 2011, Mr Mereniuk prompt that his son-in-law give up smoking as a result of ‘this quantities to most likely $30-40 per week’
‘We aren’t right here to prop you up nor save your marriage.’
Mr Mereniuk additionally prompt that his son-in-law give up smoking as a result of ‘this quantities to most likely $30-40 per week’.
‘We aren’t bitter nor are we baying for the total return of the cash. What we would like although, is the return of the stability of the cash from the 2 offset accounts,’ he wrote.
‘We additionally desire a dedication from each of you that you’re not going to the touch the redraw quantity. In the event you can not make that dedication you then may as properly take the cash out and return that additionally to us.’
Mr Wilks denied data of the transactions, whereas additionally making an attempt to assert they had been presents to his now-deceased spouse.
These seemingly contradictory arguments held no water with Choose Gibson who accused him of being a ‘wholly unreliable witness, whose account of occasions was not merely implausible however at occasions knowingly false’.
‘The defendant’s declare that he by no means knew how a lot he had within the financial institution or consulted his banking or monetary data, however as a substitute rang up Louise every time he needed to make a purchase order or take out cash, is totally implausible, the extra so as a result of he was operating a enterprise at the moment which might have required common entry to the financial institution and consideration of banking data,’ Choose Gibson concluded.
In 2015, Mr and Mrs Wilks determined to maneuver to Tumbi Umbi on NSW’s Central Coast.
They deliberate to promote their Kellyville property to fund the acquisition however then Mrs Wilks’ most cancers analysis in August 2016 ‘modified the whole lot’.
Mr and Mrs Mereniuk declare they superior a complete of $80,000 on the situation that when the Tumbi property was ultimately offered the full quantity, plus the $80,000, was to be paid again.
Mr Wilks offered the property in December 2019, nearly a yr after his spouse died.
In 2015, Mr and Mrs Wilks determined to maneuver to Tumbi Umbi on NSW’s Central Coast (pictured)
He stored the proceeds, ‘save for the sum of $154,000 which has been retained in a solicitor ’s belief account pending the end result of those proceedings’, the judgement famous.
It is usually understood that Mr and Mrs Mereniuk unsuccessfully tried to problem Mr Wilks’ declare to their daughter’s superannuation with the Australian Monetary Grievance Authority.
The judgment famous that each events had ‘not solely a monetary curiosity within the consequence but additionally a level of hostility motivating them’.
‘The plaintiffs believed (appropriately, because it turned out) that the defendant’s absence in the course of the six months previous to Louise dying of most cancers was as a result of he was having an affair with one other girl,’ Choose Gibson wrote.
It was revealed that the grandparents ‘stepped right into a parenting position’ of their daughter’s youngsters earlier than her dying after there have been ‘points within the marriage’ between Mr and Mrs Wilks.
Finally, the choose dominated that the cash had been within the type of a mortgage, moderately than a present.
‘The plaintiffs had been giving the defendant and Louise monetary help within the type of a sequence of separate loans for separate functions, however as “the Financial institution of Mum and Dad”, not “the Giftshop of Mum and Dad””,’ Choose Gibson wrote.
‘They anticipated reimbursement however on the similar time took points related to like and affection into consideration; specifically, whereas Louise was dying of most cancers and the wedding clearly in bother, they forbore to ask for funds in circumstances the place I’m glad that there was an understanding that additional repayments wouldn’t fall due till the Tumbi Umbi property was offered.’
But it surely acknowledged that ‘sooner or later, courts could contemplate that the phenomenon of the “Financial institution of Mum and Dad” could also be interpreted otherwise’.
The judgment notes analysis by the Productiveness Fee that ‘if “Mum and Dad” had been an precise financial institution, it will be someplace between the fifth and ninth greatest mortgage lender in Australia’.
When approached for remark by Each day Mail Australia on Thursday, Mr Wilks mentioned he felt he had been ‘exhausting executed by’.
‘I actually cannot touch upon it in the meanwhile however I am fairly to speak to you afterward as a result of I have been exhausting executed by however at this stage I am not keen to make an announcement,’ he mentioned.
