The daughter involved in an ugly family feud over the ownership of a real estate agency in Sydney’s eastern suburbs has lost in her final bid for a slice of the family business.
Paula-Marie Penya claims her father Paul promised she would end up a “rich little girl” if she worked at Matra Real Estate without pay, and was promised both the business and their family home in Eastlakes once he retired.
However, upon his retirement in 2018, Mr Penya ended up selling the business to Century 21 Real Estate for just over $220,000.
Mr Penya gave Paula-Marie $5000 from the sale.
After the sale of the business, Ms Penya ended up taking her dad to court after he decided also to sell the family home in Eastlakes as he needed more funds for his retirement.
Ms Penya currently lives there with her husband and their two kids, as well as her mum and Mr Penya’s ex-wife Theresa.
Mr Penya said he would not move to sell the house if Paula-Marie could buy him out, however, she was unable to take out a loan as she was not working.
Last year, Ms Penya’s estoppel claim was dismissed, with NSW Supreme Court Justice Kate Williams finding she had failed to establish that a “clear and unequivocal promise” was made that she would be given the property and business after her father’s retirement.
Justice Williams said the evidence pointed towards Ms Penya being promised the business and home ”by way of inheritance” after her parents’ deaths.
However, Ms Penya lodged an appeal of the finding which was heard in February.
In her appeal, Ms Penya argued that Judge Williams applied too strict a standard by requiring a “clear and unequivocal promise”.
She also challenged the finding that she had not seemingly suffered any financial detriment by working at the agency unpaid, with Judge Williams noting that she and her husband owned multiple investment properties worth over $2 million.
The appeal panel dismissed all 14 of Ms Penya’s grounds, finding that she was unable to prove she would have been in a stronger financial position if she pursued work outside of the family business.
The panel noted that Ms Penya’s family had been living “rent-free” and that she had been given cash payments by her father over the years which had allowed the couple to build a “valuable investment property portfolio”.
Both parties have been contacted for comment.
Mr Penya changes his original will
Earlier, the court heard how Mr Penya had changed his will due to the proceedings.
Originally, Mr Penya’s will gave everything to his daughter, however, he is now leaving his estate to his long-term partner Irene.
“I just got sick of it. It was all take, take, take,” Mr Penya told the court.
“When they need money, when I had money they could get it, but when I was out, no money, now I was the bad one. I made them millionaires; they were useless.”
Do you know more? Is there another case we should be covering? Get in touch with our reporter sarah.keoghan@news.com.au or reach out to us anonymously here.
