Your support helps us to tell the story Read more Support Now From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference. Read more
An elderly "crystal healer" is embroiled in a High Court battle with her millionaire son, who she claims threatened to leave her "on the streets" amidst a bitter £2m dispute over money and property.
Moya Montgomerie, 72, alleges that her 55-year-old son, Jason Minns, is an "arch-manipulator" who has spent his adult life "exploiting her guilt" over her divorce from his father to extract vast sums in loans.
She claims that Mr Minns used threats of homelessness and preventing her from seeing her grandchildren to secure cash for his lifestyle and property investments.
Ms Montgomerie is now suing to recover £1m she says she is owed, alongside demanding he pay off the mortgage and transfer the deeds to her £1m Hampshire home. She asserts the property is hers, despite being registered in the names of Mr Minns and his wife, Stephanie, 54.
The reiki therapist, crystal healer, and "angel card" reader says that her son agreed to sign over the house as part-payment of his debts, but has since reneged, declaring he will instead "see her on the streets".
However, Mr Minns and his wife are contesting the case. Their lawyers told Mr Justice Richard Smith that Ms Montgomerie is a "serial liar" and, in fact, owes her son money.
Mr Minns claims much of what his mother gave him was a "gift".
While he had agreed to sell the substantial detached house in Ibworth Lane, Fleet, to his mother and step-father, Dick Houtzagers, he insists he will not do so until his mother pays him £310,000, which he alleges she owes.
open image in gallery Jason Minns outside the High Court ( Champion News )
The case recently reached court for a pre-trial hearing before the judge, who referred to the “awful family background”, adding: “The son is calling the mother a serial liar and the mother is calling the son an arch-manipulator.”
According to documents filed at the court, Ms Montgomerie – who specialises in a variety of alternative therapies – had a difficult start to life, having been brought up in “poverty” by her older brother after losing both of her parents by the time she was 12.
She went on to have her son when she was only 17, but her marriage to his dad did not last and they divorced in the 1980s, with Mr Minns staying with his father.
“Jason knows of Moya’s background and the guilt she feels from the divorce and that he remained with his father, although he spent time with his mother,” says her barrister, Helen Brander, in her claim papers.
“Throughout his adult life, he has exploited that guilt for his financial gain.
“He has on many and varied occasions too numerous to particularise requested financial assistance from Moya by way of loans to assist with his and his wife’s costs of living and/or to use as liquid funds for investment ... and Moya has on many and various occasions too numerous to particularise responded to those requests and has fulfilled them.”
Ms Montgomerie claims that, when she has in the past queried her son's need for money, she has been “shouted at” and met with threats to cut her off from her grandchildren, or to “turn her out” of the house – formerly Mr Minns and Stephanie's home and still in their names – and leave her “destitute”.
That behaviour in “exploiting the trust, confidence and fear of rejection” that his mum had in him “had the effect of cowing Moya into submission”, says the barrister.
Ms Montgomerie claims that she had already loaned her son £600,000 by 2008 and then another £500,000 so he and Stephanie could pay off the mortgage on the house, which they used to live in prior to Ms Montgomerie moving in.
The property is in the names of Mr Minns and Stephanie, but Ms Montgomerie claims an agreement was then made to sign it over to her in exchange for her writing off £750,000 of the outstanding loans she says her son and his partner owe her.
Despite that, they have since refused to sign it over and the mortgage on the property has not been paid off.
open image in gallery The Fleet house at the centre of the dispute ( Supplied by Champion News )
“The claimants assert that the defendants have acted in bad faith towards the claimants and have had and continue to have the means to satisfy the claim and their obligations,” says the barrister.
Ms Montgomerie is suing, demanding that the house be signed over and that she is paid over £1m to cover the outstanding loans, mortgage payments she says she wrongly made after 2008, and compensation for a loan she says they took out against another property she owns.
But for Mr Minns and Stephanie, barrister Lauren Kreamer denies they have done anything wrong or that they owe Ms Montgomerie anything beyond £40,000 in loans, which should be balanced against what she owes them.
“They have at all times acted in good faith towards the claimants,” she said in the couple's written defence to the action.
“It is their case that, save for the loans of £40,000, any sums given ... were gifts.
“It is expressly denied that loans or gifts totalling £600,000 were made by Moya.”
Of the dispute over ownership of the house, she continued: “It is averred that the parties' shared intention was that, if Moya and Dick were to reside at Ibworth Lane, they would purchase that property from Jason and Stephanie, upon terms to be agreed between the parties.”
She says £500,000 was paid by Ms Montgomerie towards a purchase price of £750,000 for the house, with £250,000 loaned to her by her son and daughter-in-law to cover the rest.
“It is admitted that they have not transferred the legal title to Ibworth Lane to Moya or redeemed the mortgage,” said the barrister.
“It is denied that they were required to do in circumstances where the Ibworth Lane loan has not been repaid.”
She says that the younger couple are still owed the £250,000 loan, plus £60,000 interest, and £25,000 they have spent towards the outgoings on the house.
Defending the other aspects of the claim, she says Mr Minns had the right to take out a loan on the property in Ms Montgomerie's name, because it was actually held on trust for him.
And the “mortgage installments” Ms Montgomerie claims to have wrongly paid on Ibworth Lane were in fact interest payments on the money she owed her son and daughter-in-law.
The case recently reached court for a pre-trial hearing after Ms Montgomerie applied for an order preventing the couple “dissipating” assets pending resolution of the dispute.
In court, her barrister Ms Brander claimed there was a “real risk of dissipation”, which would make it hard for her to achieve justice if she goes on to win the case.
She pointed to the quick sale by Mr Minns of a property, allegedly for less than it was worth.
“It's very distressing to her ... He has no scruples in making sure he achieves his own ends,” said Ms Brander.
“The sale of properties at an undervalue in the course of these proceedings will lead, as Mr Minns has said, to my client being on the streets.”
Sat in court, Mr Minns shook his head as the accusation was made.
His barrister, Ms Kreamer, contested the claim for a freezing order, saying there was no risk of dissipation, since their string of properties are where they get their income.
Buying and selling properties is also part and parcel of the sort of business they are involved in, and so not suspicious.
Refusing the application, Mr Justice Richard Smith said he was “not persuaded there's a real risk of dissipation”.
The case will go on to a full trial of the claims on both sides, unless a settlement is reached first.