Vanessa Amorosi’s mother accused of ‘inventing’ pact over family home

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

In the bitter Amorosi family property dispute playing out in the Supreme Court of Victoria almost everything comes down to the existence, or otherwise, of a notorious kitchen agreement.

Joy Robinson says it was struck between her and her daughter, singer Vanessa Amorosi, in February 2001. Amorosi says it simply does not exist, and never did.

Vanessa Amorosi’s mother Joyleen Robinson (centre) outside court last week.Credit: AAP

The recollection of the details of that agreement, where and when it was struck, and who was present at the time came under intense scrutiny on Tuesday as Robinson submitted to cross-examination by Philip Solomon, KC, acting for Amorosi.

Focusing on her first statement of defence, lodged in June 2021 but since amended, Solomon pointed to the assertion that Peter Robinson, Joy’s husband and Amorosi’s stepfather, had been present for the all-important conversation in which the singer allegedly promised to buy a sprawling property at Boundary Road, Narre Warren North, in Melbourne’s south-east, as a gift for her mother.

Robinson said she refused the offer of the outright gift, and instead accepted an alternative deal, on the condition that she would repay the $650,000 purchase price to her daughter any time she asked for or needed the money.

The problem with this account, Solomon said, was that it was contradicted by Robinson’s own testimony last week, when she said only her daughter and herself were present for the conversation that had led to the so-called kitchen agreement.

“I made a mistake on that one,” Robinson told the court on Tuesday morning.

She had realised the error, she added, “recently, when I sat down and really thought about things”.

Returning to the statement in Robinson’s original defence, Solomon pointed out that she had said the conversation occurred about 4pm.

Robinson stood by that account. “I remember it very well,” she said. “The only part I got wrong is that I don’t think Peter was in the room.”

Explaining any apparent contradictions, she said: “I was very nervous, I was very emotional, and I did say some wrong things … I’m trying to remember the truth here, but it was a long time ago.”

When asked to recall precisely what was said in 2001, Robinson answered, “I don’t remember”.

Pushed by Solomon, she replied: “What I said? Um. Well, I can’t tell you in one simple word what I said. There’s a bit of a story to it. If I go into details, well, I’m not allowed to.”

Solomon put it to Robinson that the “agreement” was an invention that had only come into existence in 2015, when the relationship between the women was in tatters over the disputed ownership of the Narre Warren property and Amorosi’s home in California, both of which had been purchased through trust companies that had been set up by the women early in the singer’s career.

Robinson denied that, but conceded there was never a written agreement between them, just a verbal one. “It was a mother and daughter that trusted each other,” she said.

Testifying after lunch, Peter Robinson said that prior to the commencement of legal action in 2021, he “wouldn’t have had any idea” about the business dealings of his stepdaughter.

In reference to the proposition that an agreement had been struck between Amorosi and his wife in the kitchen of the then-family home in 2001, prior to the purchase of the Boundary Road property, he said: “There may have been a discussion between Vanessa and my wife, but I wasn’t present.”

He testified that he was present, however, for a different conversation, in a different kitchen, on a different date. At first claiming this one took place in 2002, the year after the Boundary Road property was purchased, he later corrected himself and said it was 2012. “I’m not good with dates,” he added.

The substance of that later conversation was that “Vanessa said it was time to sell” one of the properties owned by the family.

Robinson said he asked her which one she wished to sell – the McKenzie Lane house owned by him and Joy, or the Boundary Road property owned by Vanessa and Joy through their trust, Vanjoy. “Mum and I don’t care which one,” he claimed he added.

“Vanessa never had to give us reasons,” he said in court. “She’d just ask, and we’d oblige … that was all I had to hear.”

It took until 2014 to ready and sell the property, after which $710,000 was paid down on a $1.2 million loan that had been secured against three Australian properties and used to buy Amorosi’s first home in the United States.

Robinson said that sometime after the kitchen conversation in 2012, he wrote to Amorosi to make it clear that if McKenzie Road were sold a debt would remain, but if Boundary Road were to be sold she would likely be debt-free.

He wrote that email, he told the court, “to ease my conscience. I wanted to be certain that she understood the monetary difference between selling Boundary Road and McKenzie Lane.”

There was never a figure put on the sum to be disbursed from the sale of McKenzie Lane, Solomon suggested, let alone a cap of $650,000.

“Correct,” replied Robinson.

The trial continues before Justice Steven Moore.

Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter here.

Most Viewed in Culture

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article