Fred’s story
While living in the suburb of Bentley Julie told Fred her mother was financing a home for her. Fred and her mother were estranged. Julie sought his opinion of buying a home in the suburb of Thornlie, and on inspection he pointed out the location, house was clad in asbestos, of high maintenance, and opposite a sports ground and those reasons should weigh on her decision.
Her mother reversed her decision to buy a house for her and her two sons and Julie asked for temporary relocation to Fred’s place delaying Fred’s decision to sell the house. Upon her mother learning of her relocation to Fred’s place she reversed her decision to buy Julie a house.
She decided on his advice of a unit in Shelley, advising him the unit next door was potentially available. Fred made inquiries to all unit owners and neighbouring properties because he was moving from the home they had briefly shared and wanted to remain in the area, only the recommended place was available.
Upon Julie’s mother learning Fred occupied the unit Julie sought a Misconduct Restraining Order (MRO) prohibiting Fred from approaching her or front door by 5 metres in September 2003.
They continued attending the same social venues weekly and lived peacefully from September2003 until 16 July 2004 when business arising from the Corporate Body meeting came to her attention.
Julie approached Ms Moncrieff on 16 July 2004 requesting the common garden bed adjacent to her unit remain as is, she had recently planted a substantial rose garden, The instructions were for removing large plantings that interfered with guttering and mulching of garden beds. She also advised her she took out a MRO on Fred preventing him from coming within 5 metres of her or the front door.
Fred says he saw Ms Moncrieff at the Office on 16 July 2004 to discuss work in progress of mulching all garden beds as Fred had finished replacing oversize plants and was informed Julie attended the office earlier that day insisting her recently established garden remain.
Fred says he explained a portion was within 5 metres of the front door but the MRO will not prevent him putting mulch on the garden bed. He says Ms Moncrieff said (go ahead with that then we need to get this done and she will notify Julie of her decision) She left the company shortly after without notifying Julie of her decision or notice to residents she was leaving the Company.
About 5 August 2004 two Police Constables came to Fred’s house asking to see a letter he received from Moncrieff Realty instructing him not to attend to Julie’s garden, Fred says he told the Constables it’s not her garden and there is no such letter. The male Constable went to Julie’s house then returned to his house and they both left.
Ms Tiede was appointed the replacement corporate body manager who Fred dealt with when Julie complained to Moncrieff Realty Fred had put mulch on the garden bed. Fred told Julie there was no letter of 16 July 2004 to him not to attend to the garden maintenance outside her unit and she was satisfied Fred had painted the new installed gas metre box. Julie wrote to Mr Blyth on 4 November 2004 asking the case be dismissed. Fred indicated by mail to Mr Blyth Moncrieff Realty are taking sides and the letter could only be a forgery and they were creating a false history of events.
Mr Blyth refused numerous requests from Fred to summons Ms Moncrieff on the authenticity of the 16 July 2004 letter whereby he responded it can-not be introduced into court without the author or person responsible attesting to it’s authenticity. No one from Moncrieff Realty attested to the authenticity of the letter indicative the letter was introduced to maintain the deceit and prejudice Fred in trial. Mr Blyth indicated to Fred it was not relevant in any case to the proceedings.
In May 2007 Julie telephoned Fred and wept upon hearing from Fred the 16 July 2004 letter was a forgery, as she had undertook her actions entirely on the belief the letter dated 16 July 2004 was genuine.
Julie passed away in late June of 2007 from complications to a long illness.