When family and property disputes collide

When it comes to managing family assets, especially after the death of a loved one, disputes can quickly escalate — particularly when promises and expectations clash with documented legal arrangements. The recent decision in Maria Di Giannantonio v Michael Di Giannantonio [2025] NSWSC 346 offers a timely reminder of the importance of proper documentation, independent legal advice, and clear communication within families.

The Background: A Family Home at the Centre of Dispute

Maria and Michele Di Giannantonio built a life together after migrating from Italy to Australia. In 1966, they purchased a family home in Haberfield, NSW. Over the years, Michele worked hard in the family’s marble and granite business, while Maria cared for their four children — Daniela, Paula, Adriana, and Michael.

In 2007, both Maria and Michele prepared Wills which left their respective estates to each other as the sole beneficiary, and in the event that their spouse had pre-deceased them, then the Estate would be held on a testamentary trust in favour of Michael (as to 50%) and Daniela, Paula and Adriana (as to the remaining 50%).

After Michele’s death in 2009, Maria became the sole registered owner of the Haberfield property (as the surviving joint tenant, pursuant to the right of survivorship). Despite a clear will that left Michele’s estate to Maria, family dynamics shifted in the years that followed. Michael, the youngest child, claimed that Michele had promised him the family home — a promise which he said justified his significant contributions to renovation works over the years.

Over a period of approximately 10 years following Michele's death, Michael caused the whole of Maria's interest in Michele's properties at Annandale and Leichhardt to be transferred to Mamro Pty Ltd (Michael's company), for no monetary consideration.  Michele's business interests were transferred to Michael via his various corporate entities.  That is, Michael essentially acquired the entirety of Michele's estate, even though as a residual beneficiary, he would have only been entitled to a 50% interest, with the remaining 50% interest to be shared amongst his siblings.

Following a breakdown in the relationship, a Deed was signed by Maria, Michael, and Mamro Pty Ltd in 2018. The Deed confirmed, among other things, that Michael had no further interest in the Haberfield property and had released Maria from any claims. It also required Michael to discharge a mortgage which had been placed on the Haberfield property in order to secure a loan taken out by Mamro to fund the purchase of a quarry property at Maroota.

When Michael failed to discharge the mortgage and later lodged a caveat claiming a beneficial interest, Maria took legal action, seeking specific performance of the Deed, removal of the caveat, and declarations to protect her ownership.

The Issues Before the Court

The Court was asked to determine several complex issues, including:

• Whether the 2018 Deed was binding and enforceable;

• Whether Michael had been under a "special disadvantage" when signing the Deed;

• Whether Michael held an equitable interest in the Haberfield property based on proprietary estoppel;

• Whether Maria should be granted specific performance, compelling Michael to discharge the mortgage; and

• Whether Michael’s release of family provision claims should be approved under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).

Key Findings

1. The 2018 Deed Was Enforceable

The Court found that the Deed was validly executed, binding, and enforceable.

• Although Michael alleged that the Deed was unfair and that he was pressured into signing, there was no credible evidence that Maria or her daughters (Daniela, Paula, Adriana) exerted undue influence or took unconscientious advantage of any special disadvantage suffered by Michael.

• Maria, who was 84 years old at the time of the hearing and gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter, was found to be a credible and forthright witness.

• Michael, by contrast, was found to be an unsatisfactory witness who exaggerated his contributions and misunderstood or misrepresented key facts.

2. No Special Disadvantage or Unconscionable Conduct

Michael argued that he had been under a special disadvantage due to alleged literacy issues and the emotional strain of his relationship breakdown at the time of signing the Deed.

The Court rejected this claim. No reliable medical evidence supported the existence of a reading, writing or comprehension disability, and Michael’s detailed cross-examination performance demonstrated that he was capable of understanding the document.

Further, Maria had acted fairly, obtaining professional legal advice and negotiating through solicitors.

3. No Proprietary Interest by Michael

Michael relied on proprietary estoppel — arguing that he had acted to his detriment based on promises that the Haberfield property would one day be his.  In addition, he relied on alleged significant labour and financial contributions, and family expectations over many decades.

However, the Court found that:

• There was no reliable evidence that Michele had made any such promises to Michael.

• Michael’s recollections were unreliable, exaggerated, and inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence (particularly the terms of Michele's 2007 will).

• Even if Michael had spent money on extensions to the Haberfield home, this was for his own benefit (living rent-free for over a decade) and did not entitle him to an interest in the property.

4. Specific Performance Ordered

Given Michael’s breach of the Deed — including his failure to discharge the mortgage — the Court ordered specific performance. Michael and Mamro Pty Ltd must now take the necessary steps to remove the mortgage from the title of the Haberfield property.

5. Withdrawal of the Caveat

The Court also ordered that Michael’s caveat be withdrawn, clearing the title and restoring Maria’s full control over the property.

6. Release of Family Provision Rights Approved

Finally, the Court approved Michael’s release under section 95 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). This means that Michael has formally relinquished any future rights to contest Maria’s estate upon her death.

Key Takeaways for Property Owners and Families

This case reinforces several important lessons for families managing intergenerational property issues:

1. Promises Must Be Documented

Even if informal promises are made within a family, courts will prioritise formal legal documents over recollections of casual conversations — especially when significant time has passed.

Lesson: Always document major agreements in writing with legal advice.

2. Deeds Are Powerful Instruments

A deed, once properly signed and delivered, is binding even if a party later regrets the terms. Courts are generally reluctant to unwind a deed unless clear evidence of unconscionable conduct, mistake, or incapacity exists.

Lesson: Be cautious when signing deeds and understand the long-term consequences.

3. The Importance of Independent Legal Advice

Maria was able to demonstrate that she acted fairly and appropriately by engaging solicitors throughout the negotiation and execution of the Deed. Michael, by contrast, did not obtain independent advice and later tried unsuccessfully to argue that he didn’t understand what he signed.

Lesson: Always seek independent legal advice when entering into property agreements — especially with family.

4. Specific Performance and Enforcement

If a party refuses to comply with an agreement (like discharging a mortgage or removing a caveat), the courts can — and will — order specific performance, compelling action to be taken.

Lesson: Legal agreements are enforceable, and breach can lead to court-ordered compliance, plus costs consequences.

5. Family Provision Releases Are Enforceable

Under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), it is possible to release a person’s right to claim against an estate, provided court approval is obtained. Maria secured that protection through this litigation.

Lesson: If you wish to prevent future estate disputes, a properly approved release can offer powerful protection.

Conclusion

Disputes involving family and property are often deeply emotional, but ultimately, courts will look to the evidence — not sentiment — when resolving claims.

The decision in Maria Di Giannantonio v Michael Di Giannantonio reminds us that clear documentation, fair dealings, and proper legal advice are critical — especially when the family home is at stake.