Court finds claimed equitable interests were not established despite two property advances
The Supreme Court of Victoria has ruled that a registered proprietor’s sister and daughter have no equitable interests in a Highett property and ordered the removal of their caveats from the title.
The proceeding concerned 88 Turner Road, Highett, which had previously been the subject of Family Court orders following the breakdown of Mesut Koca’s marriage to Tumay Koca. Those orders required Mesut to pay Tumay $469,105 or, failing payment, sell the property, with Tumay entitled to 60 percent and Mesut to 40 percent of the net proceeds after specified liabilities were met. Mesut did not pay, and the property remained unsold.
Tumay commenced the Supreme Court proceeding under s. 90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958, challenging caveats lodged by Nigmet, Mesut’s sister, and Talia, Mesut and Tumay’s daughter. Talia abandoned her claims during cross-examination, leaving the court to determine whether Nigmet held an equitable interest in the property.
Nigmet relied on four purported loan agreements. They concerned advances of $50,000 towards the property deposit, $92,072.41 towards settlement, $275,000 for a proposed business venture, and $182,015 for another proposed business and legal expenses.
In Koca v Koca [2026] VSC 642, the court accepted that Nigmet or companies associated with her provided $50,000 towards the deposit and $92,072.41 towards settlement. Banking documents supported those advances, and a witness gave evidence that he saw Nigmet and Mesut sign agreements relating to them.
However, the court was not satisfied that the terms produced in evidence were the terms governing those advances or that they created security interests over the property. It also was not satisfied that the later agreements were signed on or about the dates they bore.
The court identified problems with the documents, including differences between the paper used for execution pages and other pages and unexplained markings on purported originals that did not appear on earlier copies. It also considered Mesut’s failure to rely on the four agreements during the Family Court proceedings and the absence of evidence from several people connected with their preparation or execution.
The court found that Nigmet had not established an interest as chargee. It also rejected the possibility of a resulting trust because Nigmet argued that she had lent the money rather than contributed to the purchase price in exchange for ownership.
The court declared that neither Nigmet nor Talia held an equitable interest in the property and ordered the Registrar of Titles to remove their caveats.
The court said its reasons remained consistent with Mesut still being personally liable to repay the $50,000 and $92,072.41 advances. However, it did not determine who the true lender was or whether any limitations defence applied because Nigmet had not claimed repayment from Mesut in the proceeding.
