Reeves v Reeves - Part 4 of 8 (links to other parts in the comments).
The brothers kept separate lives. Accordingly, when Russell gave evidence of statements Jim had made to him whilst working the Dingadee lots that (for example) “Keep going. What we are doing is worthwhile. This will all be yours one day", Kevin was not in a position to deny them. Russell's case, in Kevin's mind, was uncorroborated by independent witnesses and entirely self-interested.
But back to the narrative. In time, Russell married. He and his wife Barbara had moved onto a property created by subdivision of one of the Dingadee lots, acquired from his parents with Russell's life savings. They had three children, Andrew, Stuart and Angela, who in time also helped around the farm. This meant each child could also give evidence of things Jim had said about how the properties they were working would one day be Russell's, such as “Russ, you, Stuart, Andrew and Angela have done a wonderful job here. It will be yours one day.”
Jim died in 2005. At about the same time, the dairy industry was going through some upheaval. In order to cope, the decision was made to close the Kenilworth dairy and lease out the farm for a beef cattle operation. All Dingadee lots, plus a couple of the Kenilworth lots, were leased out. Russell and his children continued to work them to keep them in good condition for the tenant farmers. At this point, when Gloria talked to Russell about what he could expect to inherit, she began referring to “the leased lots" - meaning all Dingadee lots plus two Kenilworth lots. As before, when Russell said Gloria was making these representations, Kevin was not present and was in no position to deny they occurred.
Gloria made her last will in October 2010. Crucially, she gifted to Russell:
"the real estate in my property known as “Neilsons” … and more particularly described as Lot [XX] in DP [XXXXXX] and my property known as “Dinga Dee” more particularly described as
Lot [X] in DP [XXXXXX] together with improvements thereon."
Note "Dinga Dee" was spelt with two words rather than one. Both it and "Neilsons" were given a particular title reference.
As well as those specific properties, Russell received 1/3 of residue only. The particular lots referred to in the gifts of "Dinga Dee" and "Neilsons" were not the entirety of what had either been known variously as "the Dingadee lots", or even "the leased lots" – it was the Dingadee lot (singular) only. Even more curiously, the "Neilsons" lot, being north of Stroud Hill Road, would ordinarily have been understood to be included in references to “the Dingadee lots” or “the leased lots". However it was separately identified as forming part of Russell's gift.
Next - Part 5 of 8, what Russell asked the Court to do, and how he set about proving his case.
Our goal is to help our clients, fellow businesses, find solutions to their security, storage, documentation and E- Commerce Fulfillment challenges to enable them to focus on their day-to-day operations.
1moJohn will be missed. It was great working with him during my time on the board.