Son's Claim for Interest in Family Farm

The Western Australia Supreme Court has found that a son should be given a one third interest in the family farm as a result of representations made to him by his father, the owner of the farm, and also by his mother on behalf of herself and her husband.

Cases with similar facts do become the subject of court decisions from time to time and the circumstances surrounding this case, Consolaro v Consolaro, decided in August 2009, are a reminder that when a promise of a share in the farm is made by parents, and acted on by a child who works on the farm in expectation of receiving a share, the courts will order that the promise be put into effect.

In this case the son’s claim is that from an early age he worked on various Consolaro farming properties and gave up opportunities to pursue other trades or careers on the faith of the promises made to him that in return for his working on those properties his name would be put on the title deeds as an equal one-third owner of the family’s farming lands.

The Court exhaustively reviewed the activities of the Consolaro family members and their farming operations over many years and concluded that the son did, over those years and notwithstanding arguments with his parents, continue to work on the family properties (although not full time) and performed much additional voluntary activity to advance the family enterprise which his mother and father conducted in partnership. The Court was also satisfied that his mother often pleaded with him not to leave and this persuaded him to accept the parental assurances that he would be made a co-owner of the lands with them. In addition he was, by such assurances, persuaded to stay on after he experienced dissatisfaction in receiving relatively low wages or return for the work he put in.

The Court did not consider that a precise determination could be made as to the amount of work which the son performed in the various family activities over about 30 years, as too much time had gone by, there were few reliable records kept and mutual family hostilities had become so intense that the oral accounts which were given were not considered to be entirely objective. Nonetheless, the Court was satisfied that the son did work continually on family operations for the 30 year period even though he was also engaged in other operations for his own personal benefit.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that a one-third interest in the family properties be held on trust for the son by the father and stated that, if necessary, the Court would order that a transfer of a one-third interest be made to the son or that he receive compensation equal to a one-third interest in the land.