Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #7

[Trooper]

Yes, I remember vaguely. This might be one of the exceptions. An elderly couple at risk of losing their home through no fault of their own, complicated legal issues. It's not like someone opting to sue for defamation, who could just drop the whole notion and accept that not everybody we meet is going to like us for bad reasons or good, and to be disliked is not a mortal wound.

 

[OwlHeart]

There is a lot of money missing. Selling her clothes, the properties are mortgaged, she took some trips and bought expensive goods but it’s possible there is money hidden or paid to other parties privy in this

I think of Bullion and a big safe and where MC thought help was there was murder instead.
They were never her friends and she had become as useless to them as a racehorse with a broken leg on Cup day (I love animals btw and have boycotted MCD for at least a decade)

 

[SLouTh]

and where MC thought help was there was murder instead

I have wondered about this too ... and do hope this case is still being actively investigated .....

 

[Sophist]

I don't think it sounds low for this situation. (I see child support amounts of people I do payroll for, they are reasonably high earners.)
Mother living where she lived, driving what she drove, wearing what she wore, travelling where she travelled, all on 'her own' dollars.
Although we now know that the son was basically being financially cared for by his father and the investors.

Possibly and it would depend on what she had advised her income to be, I just didn’t see Melissa as being the type to not take all she could get in that situation and $200 a week for child support from someone on a reasonable salary didn’t sound all that high but they could have had a private arrangement, not all are collected through the government…

 

[SLouTh]

And which way do you think it will go, split or lumped together?

The one legal argument that may push the case towards ASIC's favour and request, for the estates to be merged and liquidated ASAP, is that "Bankruptcy proceedings legally requires an actual date of death, if the person is deceased" and at this stage, that is not known.....

 

[SouthAussie]

Possibly and it would depend on what she had advised her income to be, I just didn’t see Melissa as being the type to not take all she could get in that situation and $200 a week for child support from someone on a reasonable salary didn’t sound all that high but they could have had a private arrangement, not all are collected through the government…

And her ex-husband might have been savvy to Melissa's ways and not let her get away with trying to soak him, when she was living in an affluent manner.
Pay the school directly, buy other things directly, and not give the cash to her.

We have heard about a lot of victims of Melissa's, but I believe that there would also be people who could spot her coming a mile away and not fall for her persuasions. We just don't hear from those people.

After spending years with her, her ex-husband may have already learned her wily ways.


Just to add: If the ex-husband has a wife and family, the court is not going to take food out of his (other) children's mouths to feed his (presumably) first child. It would all be balanced out as fairly as it could be. imo

 

[SLouTh]

I just didn’t see Melissa as being the type to not take all she could get in that situation

This......
It also makes you wonder how many lies she told during the custody situation as well.......... given what we know now about her "business" ......

 

[SLouTh]

Something I don’t understand ....if the G’s intention was to put the $1m on the mortgage for the Edgecliffe property - WHY didn’t they put the payment directly in the bank? Instead they made the contribution to MC....why?

I am guessing that back then the G's, "Trusted" their daughter......
Just like everyone that invested with MC "trusted" her with their money ....

I also agree with Estelle that MC had already purchased this property by then, and it would make sense to transfer money to their daughter ..... and again, at that stage there was no evidence of her theft......

 

[SLouTh]

Like how she pocketed the $1m that her parents contributed to her towards the mortgage....she changed her mind on what she was going to do with the money!!

Also, didn’t Mr Gleeson comment that “...all the MC documents they had seen were all false”!

I found this very interesting paragraph on the Edgecliff property ......


We also note that, although not reflected in the above agreement, (name redacted) has been satisfying the mortgage repayments in respect of the Edgecliff Property from, on or around, November 2018, in the amount of $6,000 per month. Accordingly, may have an interest in the property however, to what extent, we are uncertain.
Redacted-affidavit-of-Bruce-Gleeson-sworn-25-June-2021.pdf (fedcourt.gov.au) Page 18

I do wonder if MC changed her mind about the Edgecliff property and was resenting paying for it???

Also the Edgcliff Property repayments have being paid by someone other than MC........ since Nov 2018

 

[Redrunner]

The one legal argument that may push the case towards ASIC's favour and request, for the estates to be merged and liquidated ASAP, is that "Bankruptcy proceedings legally requires an actual date of death, if the person is deceased" and at this stage, that is not known.....

That was my understanding as well.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes they are only emails. Not sure if you can write fake emails. But there did not seem to be any connection in the emails directly to the Edgecliff property.

Superficially, it all read OK but thinking about it now, it would not face up to legal scrutiny IMO.

However, looking at page 18 of the affidavit that SLouTH referenced, it seems that in Melissa's will .....

"that Ms Caddick would remain as sole proprietor of the Edgecliff Property upon the understanding that she grants an estate or interest in the land to redacted, as joint tenants, for life, or their earlier vacation of the land (we note that this arrangement is also reflected in clause 48 of the enclosed Last Will and Testament of Melissa Louise Caddick)"

So, if Melissa's will is signed, witnessed, and sealed in a reputable manner - she has already stated that her (presumably) parents are tenants for life. This could hold up, even if the property is sold with the condition that her parents are tenants for life.

 

[JLZ]

However, looking at page 18 of the affidavit that SLouTH referenced, it seems that in Melissa's will .....

"that Ms Caddick would remain as sole proprietor of the Edgecliff Property upon the understanding that she grants an estate or interest in the land to redacted, as joint tenants, for life, or their earlier vacation of the land (we note that this arrangement is also reflected in clause 48 of the enclosed Last Will and Testament of Melissa Louise Caddick)"

So, if Melissa's will is signed, witnessed, and sealed in a reputable manner - she has already stated that her (presumably) parents are tenants for life. This could hold up, even if the property is sold with the condition that her parents are tenants for life.

I think that means that she's leaving them the property in her will, but only until they die or leave voluntarily . . . so the parents can't will it to someone else. Somebody else must have been specified to inherit the property in the long run. But, that doesn't mean that the parents had any ownership before Melissa's death, and if everything is taken over by liquidation processes prior to the terms of the will being put in action, this leaves the parents nowhere. I Am Not A Lawyer.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think that means that she's leaving them the property in her will, but only until they die or leave voluntarily . . . so the parents can't will it to someone else. Somebody else must have been specified to inherit the property in the long run. But, that doesn't mean that the parents had any ownership before Melissa's death, and if everything is taken over by liquidation processes prior to the terms of the will being put in action, this leaves the parents nowhere. I Am Not A Lawyer.

Absolutely agree that the parents have no ownership. They appear to have been willed Tenants for Life status. Which is not ownership. Just means they can reside there until they die or decide to leave the property, as long as they take good care of the property.

I posted a link about it back in the thread somewhere.

 

[JLZ]

Absolutely agree that the parents have no ownership. They appear to have been willed Tenants for Life status. Which is not ownership. Just means they can reside there until they die or decide to leave the property, as long as they take good care of the property.

I posted a link about it back in the thread somewhere.

"Joint tenancy" is a type of ownership indeed.
The Difference Between Joint Tenancy & Tenants in Common

 

[Trooper]

I think that means that she's leaving them the property in her will, but only until they die or leave voluntarily . . . so the parents can't will it to someone else. Somebody else must have been specified to inherit the property in the long run. But, that doesn't mean that the parents had any ownership before Melissa's death, and if everything is taken over by liquidation processes prior to the terms of the will being put in action, this leaves the parents nowhere. I Am Not A Lawyer.

I am not a lawyer either, but you can't will to anyone what you don't own, and Melissa did not own Edgecliff... she didn't hold title on it, the bank does, because she has a large mortgage on it, and the G's are trying to claim they have a share in the residue of the money that will be the difference of what is owed to the bank and what can be realised on the sale of the property..

The Gs do not want the place sold, from what I gather, they want to know the Valuator's General price the place was valued at so they can put into process borrowing the residue of their original $1 mill, ( which they hope the court will award them, and I doubt the court will, but hey...) the money someone believes Melissa put into the property ( and for which their isn't much record off, ) and what price the Valuator says it should be.

The court is not releasing , to the G's, the Valuators price. For obvious reasons.

 

[MsLilly]

However, looking at page 18 of the affidavit that SLouTH referenced, it seems that in Melissa's will .....

"that Ms Caddick would remain as sole proprietor of the Edgecliff Property upon the understanding that she grants an estate or interest in the land to redacted, as joint tenants, for life, or their earlier vacation of the land (we note that this arrangement is also reflected in clause 48 of the enclosed Last Will and Testament of Melissa Louise Caddick)"

So, if Melissa's will is signed, witnessed, and sealed in a reputable manner - she has already stated that her (presumably) parents are tenants for life. This could hold up, even if the property is sold with the condition that her parents are tenants for life.

...in the Affidavit it also mentions that MC had 2 Will...2016 and 2019...nothing about this case is straight forward!

 

[SouthAussie]

...in the Affidavit it also mentions that MC had 2 Will...2016 and 2019...nothing about this case is straight forward!

The latter will would take precedence. I would think that is likely the one that the attorney is referring to.
The language in wills says something to the effect of 'this will takes the place of any preceding wills and testaments'.

 

[JLZ]

I am not a lawyer either, but you can't will to anyone what you don't own, and Melissa did not own Edgecliff... she didn't hold title on it, the bank does, because she has a large mortgage on it, and the G's are trying to claim they have a share in the residue of the money that will be the difference of what is owed to the bank and what can be realised on the sale of the property..

The Gs do not want the place sold, from what I gather, they want the Valuator's General price the place was valued at so they can put into process borrowing the residue of their original $1 mill, ( which they hope the court will award them, and I doubt the court will, but hey...) the money someone believes Melissa put into the property ( and for which their isn't much record off, ) and what price the Valuator says it should be.

The court is not releasing , to the G's, the Valuators price. For obvious reasons.

I don't know, it seems unlikely to me that the banks would lend a large amount of money to an elderly couple who can't afford to pay their lawyer properly.

(Edit) The pro bono home loan!

 

[JLZ]

I am not a lawyer either, but you can't will to anyone what you don't own, and Melissa did not own Edgecliff... she didn't hold title on it, the bank does, because she has a large mortgage on it, and the G's are trying to claim they have a share in the residue of the money that will be the difference of what is owed to the bank and what can be realised on the sale of the property..

The Gs do not want the place sold, from what I gather, they want to know the Valuator's General price the place was valued at so they can put into process borrowing the residue of their original $1 mill, ( which they hope the court will award them, and I doubt the court will, but hey...) the money someone believes Melissa put into the property ( and for which their isn't much record off, ) and what price the Valuator says it should be.

The court is not releasing , to the G's, the Valuators price. For obvious reasons.

And the other point is that nothing in a will takes effect before the person is dead, so if the parents are claiming that Melissa had, years ago, made them tenants for life in a rental sense, the will isn't the document to prove it.

 

[SLouTh]

And the other point is that nothing in a will takes effect before the person is dead, so if the parents are claiming that Melissa had, years ago, made them tenants for life in a rental sense, the will isn't the document to prove it.

It was noted on the actual mortgage document, as an annexure, IIRCC
But that is the only other place I can recall...