A 72-year-old crystal healer is embroiled in a High Court battle with her millionaire son, who she claims threatened to leave her homeless amidst a bitter £2 million dispute over money and property.
The Allegations
Moya Montgomerie, a reiki therapist and angel card reader, alleges that her 55-year-old son, Jason Minns, is an arch-manipulator who has spent his adult life exploiting her guilt over her divorce from his father to extract vast sums in loans. She claims that Mr. Minns used threats of homelessness and preventing her from seeing her grandchildren to secure cash for his lifestyle and property investments.
Ms. Montgomerie is now suing to recover £1 million she says she is owed, alongside demanding he pay off the mortgage and transfer the deeds to her £1 million Hampshire home. She asserts the property is hers, despite being registered in the names of Mr. Minns and his wife, Stephanie, 54. She says that her son agreed to sign over the house as part-payment of his debts but has since reneged, declaring he will instead see her on the streets.
The Defence
However, Mr. Minns and his wife are contesting the case. Their lawyers told Mr. Justice Richard Smith that Ms. Montgomerie is a serial liar and, in fact, owes her son money. Mr. Minns claims much of what his mother gave him was a gift. While he had agreed to sell the substantial detached house in Ibworth Lane, Fleet, to his mother and step-father, Dick Houtzagers, he insists he will not do so until his mother pays him £310,000, which he alleges she owes.
The case recently reached court for a pre-trial hearing before the judge, who referred to the awful family background, adding: The son is calling the mother a serial liar and the mother is calling the son an arch-manipulator.
Background
According to documents filed at the court, Ms. Montgomerie had a difficult start to life, having been brought up in poverty by her older brother after losing both of her parents by the time she was 12. She went on to have her son when she was only 17, but her marriage to his dad did not last and they divorced in the 1980s, with Mr. Minns staying with his father.
Jason knows of Moyas background and the guilt she feels from the divorce and that he remained with his father, although he spent time with his mother, says her barrister, Helen Brander, in her claim papers. Throughout his adult life, he has exploited that guilt for his financial gain. He has on many and varied occasions too numerous to particularise requested financial assistance from Moya by way of loans to assist with his and his wifes costs of living and/or to use as liquid funds for investment ... and Moya has on many and various occasions too numerous to particularise responded to those requests and has fulfilled them.
Ms. Montgomerie claims that, when she has in the past queried her sons need for money, she has been shouted at and met with threats to cut her off from her grandchildren, or to turn her out of the house and leave her destitute. That behaviour in exploiting the trust, confidence and fear of rejection that his mum had in him had the effect of cowing Moya into submission, says the barrister.
Financial Details
Ms. Montgomerie claims that she had already loaned her son £600,000 by 2008 and then another £500,000 so he and Stephanie could pay off the mortgage on the house, which they used to live in prior to Ms. Montgomerie moving in. The property is in the names of Mr. Minns and Stephanie, but Ms. Montgomerie claims an agreement was then made to sign it over to her in exchange for her writing off £750,000 of the outstanding loans she says her son and his partner owe her. Despite that, they have since refused to sign it over and the mortgage on the property has not been paid off.
The claimants assert that the defendants have acted in bad faith towards the claimants and have had and continue to have the means to satisfy the claim and their obligations, says the barrister. Ms. Montgomerie is suing, demanding that the house be signed over and that she is paid over £1 million to cover the outstanding loans, mortgage payments she says she wrongly made after 2008, and compensation for a loan she says they took out against another property she owns.
The Couple's Response
But for Mr. Minns and Stephanie, barrister Lauren Kreamer denies they have done anything wrong or that they owe Ms. Montgomerie anything beyond £40,000 in loans, which should be balanced against what she owes them. They have at all times acted in good faith towards the claimants, she said in the couples written defence to the action. It is their case that, save for the loans of £40,000, any sums given ... were gifts. It is expressly denied that loans or gifts totalling £600,000 were made by Moya.
Of the dispute over ownership of the house, she continued: It is averred that the parties shared intention was that, if Moya and Dick were to reside at Ibworth Lane, they would purchase that property from Jason and Stephanie, upon terms to be agreed between the parties. She says £500,000 was paid by Ms. Montgomerie towards a purchase price of £750,000 for the house, with £250,000 loaned to her by her son and daughter-in-law to cover the rest.
It is admitted that they have not transferred the legal title to Ibworth Lane to Moya or redeemed the mortgage, said the barrister. It is denied that they were required to do in circumstances where the Ibworth Lane loan has not been repaid. She says that the younger couple are still owed the £250,000 loan, plus £60,000 interest, and £25,000 they have spent towards the outgoings on the house.
Defending the other aspects of the claim, she says Mr. Minns had the right to take out a loan on the property in Ms. Montgomeries name, because it was actually held on trust for him. And the mortgage installments Ms. Montgomerie claims to have wrongly paid on Ibworth Lane were in fact interest payments on the money she owed her son and daughter-in-law.
Court Proceedings
The case recently reached court for a pre-trial hearing after Ms. Montgomerie applied for an order preventing the couple dissipating assets pending resolution of the dispute. In court, her barrister Ms. Brander claimed there was a real risk of dissipation, which would make it hard for her to achieve justice if she goes on to win the case. She pointed to the quick sale by Mr. Minns of a property, allegedly for less than it was worth.
Its very distressing to her ... He has no scruples in making sure he achieves his own ends, said Ms. Brander. The sale of properties at an undervalue in the course of these proceedings will lead, as Mr. Minns has said, to my client being on the streets. Sat in court, Mr. Minns shook his head as the accusation was made.
His barrister, Ms. Kreamer, contested the claim for a freezing order, saying there was no risk of dissipation, since their string of properties are where they get their income. Buying and selling properties is also part and parcel of the sort of business they are involved in, and so not suspicious. Refusing the application, Mr. Justice Richard Smith said he was not persuaded theres a real risk of dissipation. The case will go on to a full trial of the claims on both sides, unless a settlement is reached first.
