A woman has successfully obtained a court ruling ordering her daughter and ex-son-in-law to refund more than €45,500 in donations she had given them to help them set up their family.

Mr Justice Christian Falzon Scerri accepted the woman’s demands for the donations to be refunded, not because her daughter’s marriage had failed or because the money had not been used for its intended use, as she was claiming, but because the donations were not covered by a notarial deed, an argument the woman had also made.

The names are being withheld by Times of Malta to protect the family’s identity.  

The court heard how the donations date back to 2005 and 2006 when the mother gave her daughter and her son-in-law two payments equivalent to just over €45,500. The mother told the court that at the time she was separating from her husband.

Due to the separation, she no longer had a roof over her head, so she went to stay with the daughter and her husband. She said she was living in the basement, after having incurred expenses to make it habitable.

The communion of the acquests with her ex-husband was divided and she donated some of the money to help them with their living expenses, to pay off their loans and also for allowing her to live with them.

The court heard how the donations were in the form of an interest-free loan, according to private agreements signed in front of a lawyer.

Before Mr Justice Falzon Scerri, the woman’s daughter admitted that her mother was due the amount but her husband, with whom she was locked in separation proceedings, argued that he should not be made to pay the amount as the donations were made to his estranged wife.

He argued that the woman’s claims were contradictory as she first said the donations were void because they were not covered by a notarial deed and later that the money given must be returned because they were subject to a tacit condition (related to the setting up of a family) that had been violated.

The court, however, found no conflicts in the woman’s demands and arguments.

The man also took exception to the fact that the woman was blaming him for the breakdown of the marriage, a matter that was still pending before the family court. He also tried negating that the donations had been paid but this was immediately shot down with evidence of bank transfers into his own bank accounts.

The woman told the court she wanted the money returned due to a violation of a tacit agreement that the money would be used to foster and maintain their marriage. However, the court disagreed with this argument since the woman declared, black on white, that the donations had no conditions and that she was not expecting anything in return.

The judge noted that although the plaintiff said that the money had to be used in their marriage and had to be returned if the marriage failed, in an affidavit she implied that she was asking for the money back because the man had told her that she had to move out because they were separating and had to sell the place.

The court accepted the woman’s claims and ordered the daughter and her ex-husband to pay half the amount each.