Vanessa Amorosi: Australian pop star plans to evict her own mother from the home she’s lived in for more than 20 years, according to singer’s major court victory – but her mother isn’t making it easy

Australian singer Vanessa Amorosi plans to sell the home her mother lived in for 20 years after a court ruled she is entitled to full ownership.

The Absolutely Everybody artist sued Joyleen Robinson last year for sole ownership of two properties, after the pair had a falling out nearly a decade earlier over what happened to her music earnings from the early 2000s.

One of these was Ms Amorosi’s current home in California, while the second was a rural home in Narre Warren in Melbourne’s south-east, where Ms Robinson had lived since 2001.

Last month, Superior Court Judge Steven Moore ruled that Ms Amorosi was entitled to the properties but that she must pay her mother nearly $870,000 in damages.

The case returned before Judge Moore on Wednesday afternoon after three weeks of negotiations between lawyers for both sides over the execution of his sentence failed.

“The discussions have not resolved the issue, and we are grateful that you are taking the time to consider it,” said Joel Fetter, Amorosi’s attorney.

Mr Fetter said his client would have to sell the property in Narre Warren to pay the restitution debt, but her mother had so far refused to allow estate agents access.

He told the court that his proposed plan was to allow Ms Amorosi to sell the property, but that a stay on restitution would be imposed to allow the sale to proceed.

Joyleen Robinson (pictured centre in October 2023) claimed her daughter bought the property for her. On Wednesday it was claimed Mrs Robinson will not allow access to estate agents to sell it

To sweeten the deal, Fetter said she would let Mrs. Robinson stay in the home for 90 days instead of the usual 14-day period.

“There is a quid pro quo that, in my opinion, is in favor of Ms. Robinson, instead of being deported within 14 days … she gets 90 days,” he said.

Ms Robinson’s lawyer, Daniel Harrison, proposed an alternative plan, in which Ms Amorosi would forgive the mortgage and take out a new mortgage, with her mother and stepfather no longer acting as guarantors.

He then suggested that Mrs. Robinson could place an “equitable lien” on the property until she was repaid.

“We say the only right way is to make Ms. Amorosi effectively bear full responsibility for all liabilities,” he said.

“We are simply saying that an equitable lien is the right way to deal with this.”

Judge Moore thanked the parties and deferred sentencing, saying he needed time to consider the motions.

Ms. Amorosi filed the lawsuit in March 2021, seeking sole ownership of a trust that listed both women as owners.

The Narre Warren building is at the centre of the dispute

She claimed she had bought the properties with her music rights and now believed her mother had been “very generous” with the millions of dollars she had earned.

In her emotional testimony, she told the court she believed her mother had taken control of her finances when she was a teenager.

Mrs Robinson filed a countersuit, claiming that the Narre Warren home had been purchased specifically for her and that the couple had made an agreement in the kitchen of their previous family home that if the singer ever got into financial difficulties, Mrs Robinson would repay the original purchase price of $650,000.

In 2014, she paid $710,000 from the sale of their previous home to pay off Ms. Amorosi’s $1.2 million mortgage in California, claiming the agreement had been honored.

Ms Amorosi shot to stardom after starring at the 2000 Sydney Olympics (Photo: Instagram/ @toddevision)

However, Judge Moore ruled that there had never been a “kitchen settlement” and that Mrs. Robinson would be reimbursed the $650,000 plus $219,486 in interest.

During the trial, Mrs Robinson testified that she always acted in her daughter’s best interests and that she followed the advice of an accountant recommended by her manager.

The case will come back before the court at a later date.

Further discussions will take place later this year about who should pay the legal costs.