A squatter took possession of a little fibro cottage before it was sold for almost $1.5million with the huge sum of money given to his widow.
Ross Paul maintained the one-bedroom property at Gymea Bay, in Sydney‘s Sutherland Shire, for nearly 50 years after Joseph Louis Saric died in July 1968.
The pair lived in nearby suburbs and Mr Paul organised the funeral for the Croatian migrant when he died – however it is unclear if the two men were friends.
Mr Paul later died in 2018 with the executor of his estate launching legal proceedings that would allow him to sell the property.
He argued Mr Paul was the owner of the cottage by adverse possession – a term commonly known as ‘squatter’s rights’.
NSW Supreme Court Justice Francois Kunc found in May Mr Paul was the rightful owner.
He concluded that none of Mr Saric’s heirs were entitled to the cottage as nobody had made a claim for it and the 40-year limitation period had ended in 2009.
‘What has been proven is that Mr Paul arranged Mr Saric’s funeral and then treated Mr Saric’s fibro cottage at Gymea Bay as his (Mr Paul’s) for the next nearly 50 years until his own death in 2018,’ Justice Kunc said.
The house in Gymea Bay in Sydney’s Sutherland shire eventually sold for $1.5million and the owner’s family got nothing
Mr Saric died of cancer in July 1968 when he was in his mid-40s and the divorcee did not leave a will and had lost contact with his family.
Justice Kunc said Mr Saric had died ‘without family and, perhaps, friends’.
Mr Paul took it upon himself to notify the authorities of the death and then held a funeral a couple of days later.
The judge ruled Mr Paul did all the things a homeowner might do: he insured the house, paid rates and electricity bills, and split the cost of a fence with a neighbour.
Mr Paul even rented out the house from at least 1995.
The court found it was ‘highly unlikely that Mr Paul would have let the cottage fall into disrepair’.
In his ruling, the judge referred to ‘the possibility that Mr Saric may have told Mr Paul that the latter could have the cottage, perhaps in return for care provided by Mr Paul’.
But he said there was no evidence to this effect.
Justice Kunc found ‘the precise nature of Mr Saric’s relationship with the late Mr Ross Paul is not apparent from the evidence’.
Macquarie Law School Professor Cathy Sherry told the Sydney Morning Herald this was ‘a fairly typical adverse possession case.’
She said it showed how ‘people can lose track of land, and can lose track of relatives.’
The court heard Mr Saric may have been survived by his mother and at least one sibling.
Ms Sherry said there was ‘no doubt’ after Mr Saric’s death his family would have had a claim to the house, but ‘like all claims to land, there’s a time limit – and they didn’t assert it in the necessary period of time.’
The judge ruled Mr Paul did all the things a homeowner might do: he insured the house, paid rates and electricity bills, and split the cost of a fence with a neighbour
