The lawyer who has lost a struggle for the rights of a squatter for a house of rozelle

The judge of acting Michael Elkaim said in his decision that Abraham said he heard of three apparently abandoned properties to Sydney by his brother and visited them at the end of 2009.

Abraham said he started to keep furniture and boxes at Rozelle’s house when she and her family moved from Burradoo to the southern plateau of the new South Wales in Zetland in 2011. They moved later to Vaucluse in East of Sydney.

His “test … is that between 2009 and 2011 he visited (the house) about once a month” and started a cleaning, Elkaim said.

“He put the” blocks blockable “… but he didn’t repair the broken front window.”

Willis had a tenant at home until January 2000. An agent managed the property until 2014. During that period the council rates and other commissions were paid.

The judge said that the photos taken in March 2011, together with an invoice from a maintenance of the property to the gardening agent and the removal of the garbage, were not “in line with (the house) used to keep the furniture and clean” at that moment.

Loading

In any case, Elkaim said that using the property “as a warehouse does not prove … possession of the opposite” because it was not used “as a residence”.

The payment of the rates “assumed a certain importance” in the event, said the judge, because last year Abraham “telephoned the Council of the inner West and pretended to be (Willis) and organized the payment of the suspended rates”.

“The procedure had already started and there is a particularly strong available inference that (Abraham) … was paying the rates to strengthen your request for possession.”

Abraham’s biggest child provided evidence of the fact that they took the residence in the property in 2016 after having lived there since 2012. The judge said that the house “did not have a functional bath in 2012 and probably not until 2016”.

Elkaim said he was not satisfied that Abraham took the physical possession of the property until 2016 when his son moved full time. The previous use of the property as “a warehouse and an occasional study place” was not “to use it in the nature of a residence”.

He said it alone he defeated the request for possession of Abraham because the 12 -year period had not expired. However, it was also significant that his employment was not visible.

“Even if for the good reason not to attract possible intruders, (Abraham), deliberately, has not undertaken any action to show his employment in the outside world until much later (compared to 2011),” Elkaim said.

“The front windows have never been repaired and the roof has been repaired only in the last five years. In other words, at Passerby, the aspect of employment was not evident.”

Abraham had also claimed to have “permission to be in the premises,” Elkaim said. The court felt that in an e -mail from 2023, he told the agent Willis “he gave us the keys that follow a television program on the ABC” and “he also spoke to Mary in 2011”. Elkaim said the first conversation was in 2016.

The representation of Abraham according to which she, or her son, had the permission to occupy the property “was contrary to the open possession requirement” because it was “continued possession by the stealth”, said the judge. Has issued a judgment in favor of Willis.

Abraham is the principal of Assetnet Properties, a private company that “buys, sells, renews and builds properties … in Qld and NSW”, says a website for the company.