AN Adelaide businessman is suing his lawyers after an invalid legal document, witnessed by a cleaning lady, enabled his former defacto partner to take his Porsche, cemetery plot, and $900,000 when they split up.
In documents lodged with the Supreme Court, Nigel Dennis Treliving, 64, reveals an agreement over the then-couple’s assets was witnessed by their cleaning lady, rather than a Justice Of The Peace.
He claims Grope Hamilton and de Groot lawyers, who both deny the allegations, failed in their duty of care and are responsible for the agreement being thrown out by the Family Court which has caused him to undue losses, including his Porsche with a $12,000 personalised numberplate.
Mr Treliving says he engaged Grope Hamilton lawyers to prepare a cohabitation agreement in July 2003 with Sandra Dinah Kruse — about a year after their defacto relationship began.
Mt Treliving is the director of Cocco, which makes high-end beauty products with ingredients from Kangaroo Island, Lord Howe Island and McClaren Vale.
He is also suing Ms Kruse’s law firm, de Groots, for failing to ensure the agreement, which excluded the couple from making a claim on each other’s estate, was valid.
He says that in August 2005, the agreement was signed and officially witnessed by their cleaning lady, not a Justice of the Peace or qualified solicitor.
Mr Treliving also claims his lawyers are liable for his loss because they failed to inform him of other alleged failings, such as the need to make ”full and frank disclosure of current assets” and the need to obtain independent legal advice” before it was signed.
“Grope Hamilton owed Mr Treliving a duty of care to perform the legal services with the skill care and diligence as is reasonable to expect from a law firm of legal practitioners professing to have the expertise, skills and qualifications of Grope Hamilton,” the documents allege.
The couple separated in early 2010 and in September 2011 a court declined to recognise the agreement as a binding, legal document.
Mr Treliving says the court then ordered him to pay Ms Kruse $900,000, transfer her a cemetery plot and deliver up a Porsche 911 for her collection.
He says he has suffered the loss of the payout, plus $69,000 for the Porsche and a further $12,000 for its personalised numberplates.
He says the law firms are also liable for the $10,067 for the cemetery plot as well as almost $400,000 in legal fees.
In its defence, Grope Hamilton says the law firm did not practice in family law and it the onus was on Ms Kruse’s firm, de Groot, to provide sound advice in connection with the agreement.
“De Groot knew that the second defendant (Grope Hamilton) did not practice family law and had no relevant expertise and that Treliving relied on de Groot and was vulnerable to de Groot in respect of the proportion implementation of an enforceable agreement,” it says.
Grope Hamilton says it executed all “skill and reasonable” care it possibly could within its field of law.
“Mr Treliving did not rely on Grope Hamilton and instead relied on de Groot.
“In the alternative it was not reasonable for Mt Treliving to rely on Grope Hamilton because Grope Hamilton, to Mr Treliving’s knowledge, did not have the relevant expertise.”
The firm also says Mr Treliving ignored their requests for a meeting to discuss the agreement and failed to have it witnessed by a JP or qualified solicitor when the requirement subsequently became known to him.
It says all claims against the firm should be dismissed and costs awarded to them.
De Groots has also denied any liability for Mr Treliving’s loss, claiming they owed him no duty of care whatsoever.
“Mr Treliving had retained his own solicitors to provide him with legal advice with respect to the agreement. Mr Treliving did not seek advice from de Groots with respect to the agreement at all,” it says.
The matter will return to court at a later date.
Originally published as How can you lose this in a split?
Source: The Australian
These matters may require tailored legal advice. Contact us for a consultation.
For legal advice please contact
Dinesh Weerakkody LLB; PDLP
Barrister & Solicitor (An Australian Legal Practitioner)
An Australian Migration Agent (0742843)
President – LawHelp Australia
Treasurer – Eastern Suburbs Law Association (ESLA) of LIV
Law Institute Migration Law Committee- Member
Unit 4, 31 Princes Highway, DANDENONG, VIC 3175, Australia
MOB +61 425725570
Criminal Law | Traffic Law | Family Law | Immigration Law | Commercial Law
Wills and Powers of Attorney | Probate Law | Conveyancing (Property Law)