A Perth woman who launched a legal battle against her parents after paying more than half a million dollars towards a home she believed was hers, has lost her bid to stop them from selling.
Breanna Lane began civil proceedings against her parents, Alan and Wendy Briggs, in July after paying them more than $550,000 over 11 years.
Ms Lane told the Supreme Court of Western Australia that she and her husband, Ben Lane, were facing financial hardship in 2014 and that her parents agreed to help.
Mr and Mrs Briggs borrowed $1.2 million to purchase a three-bedroom home in the coastal suburb of Swanbourne, agreeing that their daughter and son-in-law would pay $4300 a month to live there.
Ms Lane assumed she was paying the mortgage for the home and that the property would become hers, while her parents were under the assumption she was a rental tenant and that no written or verbal agreement would suggest otherwise.
According to court documents, Ms Lane claimed she spent a weekend at her parents’ Yallingup estate in 2014, where her father agreed the property would be theirs in the future.
Ms Lane claimed there was discussion about her and her husband buying a property in their names and Mr Briggs acting as guarantor, but Mr Briggs did not agree to this.
Instead, she claimed, Mr Briggs said he would help the couple find a property and arrange ownership in his own name, given Ms Lane made payments to cover the mortgage.
According to Ms Lane, her father agreed this was the only way for the couple to stop renting and provide stability to their kids.
However, Mr Briggs said there was no record of Ms Lane visiting the home during this period, per diary entries.
Ms Lane calculated that she made 69 monthly repayments between December 2014 and August 2020, totalling $296,700.
She withdrew $10,000 from her superannuation during COVID-19 to keep up with the repayments.
According to Mr and Mrs Briggs, rent was often paid irregularly, sometimes as little as $334 per month.
The retirees allege the payments fell $5,300 into arrears.
They also claim to have supported Ms Lane with upwards of $10,000 per month in 2024, equating to $122,000.
Ms Lane acknowledged missing three payments but claimed she paid $253,462 during that time, along with an additional $19,080 between 2015 and 2022 for the installation of a JetMaster fireplace, electrical works, air-conditioning units, home security, hot water system supply, kitchen repairs and rangehood.
She also claimed to have had a change in her employment status during 2025, leading to a reduction in her income.
The Briggs’ lawyer alleged that due to this financial strain, the parents proposed a reduction of rental payments to $2100 per month, while personally covering the difference.
They also claimed Ms Lane sometimes wrote “rent” in the descriptions of her bank transfers, and wrote “mortgage” at other times.
According to court documents, the dispute began in 2024 after Mr Briggs told Ms Lane he believed the property belonged to him, that she was a tenant and there should be a lease in place.
Ms Lane claimed there had never been any lease agreement, no property manager and no discussion of renting.
In 2026, Mr Briggs informed the couple that he intended to show the property in April, to which Ms Lane contacted the real estate agent and told them she didn’t agree to any viewings by prospective buyers.
The viewing did not occur.
Between 2024 and 2026, Ms Lane claimed she received messages from her father that appeared to offer her money.
On 16 October, 2024, he said: “Don’t forget that on the sale you’ll have cash to invest or top up any shortfall.”
Later that month, he wrote: “Once the house is sold we can give you money or selectively send it we can discuss that by phone.”
In January this year, Mr Briggs sent a proposal to Ms Lane for the sale of the property and use of the profits.
He went on to accept an unspecified offer on the house in April; however, online property estimates place the value at approximately $2 million.
Ms Lane stopped making payments on July 9, before launching legal action against her parents later that month.
Mediation orders were made, but the family were unable to reach an agreement.
The Briggses did not dispute the sequence of events of the amount paid, but believe a fundamental misunderstanding of ownership occurred.
In her judgment, Justice Larissa Strk found Ms Lane’s claim was “not a strong one” and that the dispute would need to be resolved in separate proceedings.
Ms Lane made headlines in 2022 after she launched a mens nail polish brand alongside her 13-year-old son, now 17.
Ms Lane said the venture required $4000 in investment.
“I just want anyone to feel they can wear nail polish without being judged while expressing themselves,” her son said at the time.
Read related topics:Perth