Australian singer Vanessa Amorosi deadlocked after suing mum over home ownership

Australian singer Vanessa Amorosi is deadlocked with her mother after suing her over ownership of properties in Australia and the United States after a dramatic falling out.

The Absolutely Everything artist sued Joyleen Robinson for sole ownership of two properties last year almost a decade after the pair fell out over her music earnings.

Ms Robinson had lived in the semirural property in Narre Warren in Melbourne’s southeast since 2001, while the other was Ms Amorosi’s current California home.

Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justice Steven Moore ruled Ms Amorosi was entitled to the properties but would have to pay her mum almost $870,000 in restitution.

The matter returned before the court on Tuesday after negotiations between lawyers representing the mother and daughter failed.

Ms Amorosi’s barrister Joel Fetter said the singer was putting forward two of three options for a settlement between the pair following the court ruling.

In the first, Mr Fetter said Ms Amorosi would allow her mother to stay at the home if she was to be bought out of her stake in the regional property.

Ms Robinson could otherwise elect to sell the property, though the court was told there were disagreements about how and for how much that would occur.

Mr Fetter told the court it was usual for the Real Estate Institute of Victoria to be appointed to find an agent, or else someone with knowledge of selecting real estate agents.

In the second option, a net payment was to be made by Ms Amorosi to Ms Robinson after monies were exchanged on the order of costs between the pair.

The offer was initially made on the eve of the trial and would see Ms Robinson walking away with $350,000 after paying $300,000 to Ms Amorosi.

Supreme Court Justice Steven Moore questioned whether the order was “reasonable”, the basis on which he will make his ruling on costs.

“The ultimate proposition which is a net transfer of $350,000, which is vastly less than what Ms Robinson has an entitlement to by order of the court,” he said.

The court was told the calculations with which the amount to be paid by Ms Robinson was made were flawed, but according to Mr Fetter the net sum still stood.

In his submission, Ms Robinson’s lawyer, Daniel Harrison, also disputed how the figure was calculated and that it had no bearing on the final offer.

“It is a serious matter, and I don’t suggest there was any intentional or recklessness in the stating of the figure of $300,000, but it was a gross error,” he said.

“It was a profound mistake and my learned friend can’t be heard to say, or the plaintiff can’t be heard to say, look, the end justifies the means.”

Ms Amorosi launched legal action in March 2021 seeking sole ownership of a trust that listed both women as owners.

The singer claimed the properties were bought using her ownership and that her mother had been “very generous” with the millions of dollars she earnt.

“She’s the party that earned all the money to buy it, she’s the party that, obviously, with that new-found wealth, would want to buy a house for herself,” Mr Farrer said.

“And, she’s the party that acted consistently over the subsequent years, with the position that the house was hers.

“So, we say that in this offer, wherein Ms Amorosi says you can have half the house, it’s a 5050, that was very generous in my submission, having regard to the prospects.”

In countersuing, Ms Robinson claimed the Narre Warren home was bought for her and they pair had made an agreement in the kitchen of their previous family home.

The agreement allegedly stipulated that if the singer ever hit financial difficulty, Ms Robinson would repay the initial $650,000 purchase price.

In 2014 she paid $710,000 from the sale of their previous home to pay down Ms Amorosi’s $1.2m California mortgage, claiming the agreement had been fulfilled.

But Justice Moore found the “kitchen agreement” had never happened, with Ms Robinson to be reimbursed the $650,000 plus $219,486 in interest.

The court was told on Tuesday Ms Robinson had made claims that were later abandoned that the trust was for the benefit of the whole Amorosi family.

The matter is expected to return before the court later this week after an affidavit was filed late by Mr Harrison concerning restitution to the trust.