A woman is embroiled in a high-stakes legal clash with her wealthy son, battling over a tumultuous £2 million dispute in the High Court. The conflict centers around 72-year-old Moya Montgomerie, who accuses her son, Jason Minns, of making threats to leave her homeless.

Montgomerie portrays her son as an ‘arch-manipulator,’ alleging that he has leveraged her guilt over their family history—specifically her divorce and leaving him during his childhood—to his advantage throughout his adult life. She claims that Minns, now 55, has gone so far as to threaten to evict her and prevent her from seeing her grandchildren, all while soliciting financial support for his luxurious lifestyle and real estate ventures.

In stark contrast, Minns contests these allegations, with his legal team describing Montgomerie as a ‘serial liar’ in the courtroom, asserting that it is she who owes him money.

Montgomerie is pursuing legal action against her son, seeking the repayment of £1 million, which she asserts was provided as loans. She is also demanding that he settle the mortgage on her £1 million residence in Hampshire. Although the property is officially registered under the names of Mr. Minns and his wife Stephanie, Montgomerie contends that her son had promised to transfer ownership to her as partial repayment of his debts.

Ms Montgomerie is now suing him to pay back £1million she claims she gave him in loans and demanding he pay off the mortgage on her £1million home in Hampshire. 

The house is under Mr Minns and his wife Stephanie’s name but the pensioner says her son agreed to sign it over to her in part-payment of his debts.

However, Mr Minns has now gone back on his word to his mother, she claimed in court, declaring that he would instead ‘see her on the streets.’

But Mr Minns and his 54-year-old wife have hit back at Ms Montgomerie – a reiki therapist, crystal healer and ‘angel card’ reader.

Ms Montgomerie – a reiki therapist, crystal healer and ‘angel card’ reader – claims her son Mr Minns owes her £1million in loans and demands he pay off a £1million mortgage on her Hampshire home

He claimed that much of what Ms Montgomerie handed over was a ‘gift’ and said that he would only sell the ‘substantial’ detached house to her if she paid a £310,000 he claims she owes him.

Mr Minns and Stephanie used to live in the house in Ibworth Lane, Fleet, before Ms Montgomerie and her partner Dick Houtzagers – Mr Minn’s stepfather – moved in.

Ms Montgomerie claims she had loaned £500,000 to Mr Minns to pay off the mortgage on the house before she moved in, on top of £600,000 of other loans before 2008.

Judge Justice Richard Smith commented on the ‘awful family background’ at the pre-trial hearing, saying: ‘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 Mr Minns when she was only 17, but her marriage to his father did not last and they divorced in the 1980s, with Mr Minns staying with his father.

Ms Montgomerie’s barrister Helen Brander said in her claim papers: ‘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.

‘Throughout his adult life, he has exploited that guilt for his financial gain.’

She claimed that ‘on many and varied occasions’ Mr Minns had asked for money from his mother ‘to assist with his and his wife’s costs of living and/or to use as liquid funds for investment.’

Ms Montgomerie agreed to send him money at his request on many occasions, she claimed.

If she questioned her son’s need for cash, Ms Montgomerie claimed she was ‘shouted at’ and met with threats to cut her off from her grandchildren, or to ‘turn her out’ of the house – which is still in Mr Minns and Stephanie’s name – and leave her ‘destitute’.

That behaviour in ‘exploiting the trust, confidence and fear of rejection’ that his mother had in him ‘had the effect of cowing Moya into submission,’ says the barrister.

Mr Minns and his wife Stephanie, 54, have branded Ms Montgomerie a ‘serial liar’ in court and claim that she instead owes them £310,000 and refuses to sign over the house before his mother pays it

Fighting her corner in court, Ms Montgomerie claims an agreement had been made for the house to be signed 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.

‘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 Mr Minns 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 instalments’ 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.

Ms Montgomerie claims Mr Minns had agreed to sign over the ‘substantial’ detached house in Fleet, Hampshire, in exchange for her writing off £750,000 in loans she claims he owes her

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.