Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #6

[Trooper]

I wonder if the prawn tanks were inspected in the raid... uncut diamonds make for great gravel...

I still have my concerns about the wheelie bins being trotted in and out...by AK. A lot can be disposed of in a wheelie bin...papers... old contracts , memorabilia ... stuff like that..

 

[Trooper]

I see.

Sooo, recap?

Was Australia's sweetheart into the betting? Did you guys rule out any organised crime association?


Very interesting Troops.

We may call you Troops, right?

You may.

 

[Trooper]

 

[Trooper]

Yeah, unless someone like AG can come up with the funds. If not and they get none of their deposit back then they’re probably going to have to move out of Sydney...

And that would be like being evicted from Paradise, but... the trainer lady had to do exactly that once she discovered everything she ever worked for had gone on Melissa's silk underwear and sapphire necklaces.. Her and her husband had to start off again up in Taree, at over 50 , (they could no longer buy back into Sydney, ) both of them, and I thought of her when I saw that house floating down the Manning River in the floods yesterday.. .. please.. don't let that be her new home after all that ghastliness...

 

[Investig8r]

I still have my concerns about the wheelie bins being trotted in and out...by AK. A lot can be disposed of in a wheelie bin...papers... old contracts , memorabilia ... stuff like that..

IMO the police would be onto that if there was any chance he could be a person of interest. On that note have there been any confirmed persons of interest at this stage?

 

[Trooper]

Estelle... let’s not forget how much people want answers... the first one to sit down and sell the story will be able to make some money. Who will it be????

Among the claque of magazine readers here in my little court in Rose Bay, the general feeling is, no one believes anyone in this story. Even the dogs are suspect. Not quite pedigree, if you get my drift. No one can believe that the parents didn't have an inkling, their year 12 daughter, no tertiary education, or network, or gang of relatives in high places with clout, has managed to outsmart every other financial advisor in the state of NSW..
As for AK.. he is the comedy turn in this whole episode, but no one has any faith in any story he may, or may not tell. A tiny bit of grudging admiration for pulling it off, as far as he did.

I use the word again.. arriviste... they appropriated status they didn't earn , is how the general conclusions went. They do want to hear more from the victims, though. That part of this story is as mysterious as any markings in an ancient cave, to be deciphered slowly and with patient attention. How did this happen for so long? .. .

 

[Trooper]

IMO the police would be onto that if there was any chance he could be a person of interest. On that note have there been any confirmed persons of interest at this stage?

nope!...not a single sign of any such of a thing. .... It's just another Sydney Scam gone bad , among so many that go so bad in the end.. McGurk comes to mind... some get shot brazenly in the street, taking their wheelie bins in.. some manage to hightail it back to Cheng Du, or Athens, some can't take the embarrassment and go to Mum's place and do them selves in, like Rene Rivkin did.. some try a last scam and make their own created death look like murder, this kind of thing...

It is not a new thing in Sydney, by any means..

Some , like the Indian lady at ING who currently holds the record for the biggest embezzling scam of all merely fronted up, threw herself on the mercy of the court and was rewarded with an easy 6 year sentence, in a prison farm for nice ladies out the back of Sydney, pool, running track, garden, all the happy stuff. She has since gone back into the community , like the rest of us. ..

 

[SouthAussie]

Paraphrased ....

Melissa Caddick's parents are trying to stake a claim on their apartment - if the creditors seize it.
They sold their house in Connells Point in 2017 for $1.55 million.
It is believed that they significantly contributed toward the purchase of their $2.55 million apartment.

The Ocean Street apartment is in a pool of luxury assets that could be sold off by liquidators.
Caveats have been placed on the apartment and on Melissa's Dover Heights home.

The issue is still being heard in Federal Court. Returning to court on April 7th.

Melissa's parents have placed 3 caveats on the Edgecliff apartment, between December and February, to stop the apartment being sold.

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

 

[BlueViolet]

And that would be like being evicted from Paradise, but... the trainer lady had to do exactly that once she discovered everything she ever worked for had gone on Melissa's silk underwear and sapphire necklaces.. Her and her husband had to start off again up in Taree, at over 50 , (they could no longer buy back into Sydney, ) both of them, and I thought of her when I saw that house floating down the Manning River in the floods yesterday.. .. please.. don't let that be her new home after all that ghastliness...

They sold off Bernie’s silk undies in the movie

 

[JLZ]

This web site cites some case law in relation to “Equitable Claims Against Registered Interests” (about half way down the page)

IMO, I still would not rule out the parents being awarded a stake in the apartment, relative to the monies given to MC.

Source: Corey and Lind Lawyers, corneyandlind.com.au

Very relevant. To quote, with BBM:

In plainer language, the decision [Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78] effectively built on equitable claim principles stipulated in Calverly v Green and recognized that a party who contributed substantially to the purchase of a property who does not enjoy legal title may have an equitable claim to the property via the presumption of a constructive trust. This presumption essentially means that regardless of legal ownership, a constructive trust by which an unregistered contributor enjoys rights to the property may arise if it can be proven that either at the time of purchase or at some later point in the party’s relationship, there existed a common intention between the parties that said parties would acquire an interest in the property.

 

[ClottedCream]

Given they are not on title, how could they do this?

Melissa's parents have placed 3 caveats on the Edgecliff apartment, between December and February, to stop the apartment being sold.

 

[Trooper]

Given they are not on title, how could they do this?

they are currently in possession.. 9/10ths of the law.. the aim of the Receiver is to get them out, clean out the place, possibly, with the approval of the claimants, do some minor renovation and sell it for the highest price possible.

On the other hand, the aim of the current residents of the property is to stay in it, rent free for as long as his humanly possible, by instigating various legal moves that delay this inevitable occurrence of actually getting out of the place.

 

[JLZ]

Given they are not on title, how could they do this?

That's what caveats are. You're not on the title but you claim to have an equitable interest on the property. You lodge a form which is also a stat dec with the Land and Property Information Office. Then the caveat shows up on the title. https://www.cbp.com.au/insights/ins...ou-lodge-a-caveat-over-the-property-of-someon

 

[Trooper]

'if it can be proven that either at the time of purchase or at some later point in the party’s relationship, there existed a common intention between the parties that said parties would acquire an interest in the property.'


That will be difficult. The general tone of Melissa's actions indicate that she intended to scam her own parents, right up until the foreseeable end to the scam. There is no indication that she underwent any kind of reformative action to guarantee the ownership of the place in the hands of her parents, or brother. On the contrary, she actually created a will that left a property she never owned, and only rented as part of her registered Real Estate as an 'inheritance' for her brother. .

The parents may have been under the impression that all was tickety boo, but Melissa's actions indicate the exact opposite. This is where their claim comes undone, basically. They have to prove the claim that Melissa's intention as well as their own was genuine and legally correct.

 

[JLZ]

'if it can be proven that either at the time of purchase or at some later point in the party’s relationship, there existed a common intention between the parties that said parties would acquire an interest in the property.'


That will be difficult. The general tone of Melissa's actions indicate that she intended to scam her own parents, right up until the foreseeable end to the scam. There is no indication that she underwent any kind of reformative action to guarantee the ownership of the place in the hands of her parents, or brother. On the contrary, she actually created a will that left a property she never owned, and only rented as part of her registered Real Estate as an 'inheritance' for her brother. .

The parents may have been under the impression that all was tickety boo, but Melissa's actions indicate the exact opposite. This is where their claim comes undone, basically. They have to prove the claim that Melissa's intention as well as their own was genuine and legally correct.

That was my thought too, based on that website. The High Court decision plus the other case cited might throw additional, perhaps a different, light on that aspect. I'm not sure if I want to go there; interesting but time-consuming.

 

[ClottedCream]

DBM

 

[Estelle]

Estelle... let’s not forget how much people want answers... the first one to sit down and sell the story will be able to make some money. Who will it be????

Great idea! I think it will be the parents first. AK and AG do not seem like good communicators.

 

[ClottedCream]

Yes, I understand what they are, I’ve just had a dance with them as the executor of an estate.

MC’s parents claim of equity must have been accepted (at least for this purpose) otherwise tenants could place caveats on any property based on the 9/10ths rule...imagine that in the Sydney property market

That's what caveats are. You're not on the title but you claim to have an equitable interest on the property. You lodge a form which is also a stat dec with the Land and Property Information Office. Then the caveat shows up on the title. Can you lodge a caveat over the property of someone who owes you money?

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, I understand what they are, I’ve just had a dance with them as the executor of an estate.

MC’s parents claim of equity must have been accepted (at least for this purpose) otherwise tenants could place caveats on any property based on the 9/10ths rule...imagine that in the Sydney property market

It could be that because the parents claim of equity is still under consideration, they have been allowed to place the caveats until a decision has been made.

I am guessing that three caveats in three months may mean that they have been allowed to place a 30-day caveat each time. Temporary caveats, pending a legal equity decision.

 

[Trooper]

It could be that because the parents claim of equity is still under consideration, they have been allowed to place the caveats until a decision has been made.

I am guessing that three caveats in three months may mean that they have been allowed to place a 30-day caveat each time. Temporary caveats, pending a legal equity decision.

If they had a strong claim to the Edgecliff apartment, it would not be in the hands of the Receiver in the first place.. It is in those sticky, invasive, beady eyed hands precisely because they have no claim to ownership. They do , though, currently, hold possession. But this is only a matter of time . No one wants to see the Sherriff back up with a big truck and haul them away, crying and screaming.. for all it's wild ways, there is a certain politesse in Sydney, every now and then. Not all the time, though.

That will happen , eventually, if things don't go the way the Receiver says.. It is not a happy ending , on top of their very real and substantial grief, but it is what it is. . The deciding equity is not in their favour. .

If they had tried negotiation with the Receiver, they may have got an extension to find a place that suits them. But these caveat thingy's tell me that have not gone down that road, they have chosen to be argumentative about this whole shindig, and this will be very costly. It is a huge gamble, and it kind of makes me wonder, how much of that gambling gene was inherited, not acquired.