Why hardworking couple Jess and Jackie Morecroft are being forced out of their Gold Coast house 

• A couple face another setback after house ownership debacle
• Supreme Court had found the pair were entitled to $2.7million 
• Queensland government appealed a decision to pay compensation

A couple has been dealt another devastating blow when the government appealed a decision to pay them $2.7million in compensation after the house they paid for was ripped away from them. 

Jess and Jackie Morecroft have been caught in a five-year legal nightmare after they purchased a house not knowing it still belonged to someone else.

The couple paid more than $1.2million for the property at Mermaid Beach, on the Gold Coast, at an auction in March, 2018.

But its previous owner Hind Issa, 83, launched legal action in September, 2018 to hang on to it – resulting in a legal battle that has spanned more than five years.

The Queensland Supreme Court found last February that while the Morecrofts did not have a legal claim on the house, they were entitled to recover its current value of $2.7million from the lenders who wrongly sold it to them. 

In a hearing last April the court said the Queensland government should be liable for compensation because the Morecrofts were victims of a fraudulent sale. 

But since then the government has appealed against the ruling. 

Ms Morecroft said the decision shattered the couple after they had worked so hard to untangle themselves from the dodgy sale.  

‘To have someone appeal that decision is absolutely devastating to us and our future, we haven’t been able to plan anything for five years,’ she told Sunrise on Friday. 

Her husband also put out a desperate plea to the state government to back down. 

‘Put yourselves in our shoes, we are just trying to get by, we are honest and kind people and we didn’t set out to anything wrong here, we just bought a house,’ Mr Morecroft said. 

He explained the Queensland Land Titles Act has a statutory scheme that protects victims of fraud – so if someone were to lose a property then the state has to compensate them.

‘That was set up a long time ago to protect people like us and the government are just ignoring that law – arguing all sorts of technicalities,’ he added.

The house is a prime piece of real estate as it is located within walking distance to the beach and has increased in value to be worth more than $2.7million. 

It was sold at a mortgagee auction, which is when a property is listed for sale because the owner defaults on their mortgage.

The Supreme Court found in February, 2023 that Ms Issa was still the rightful owner after she claimed the mortgage had been taken out by a relative who had forged her signature.

The court heard the relative of Ms Issa’s had applied for a loan, forged her signature to put the house as a guarantee and then defaulted.

When the lenders seized the house, Ms Issa lodged a caveat, which is a claim with the Land Titles office intended to warn the public there is a legal interest in the property.

Negotiations between the company which lent the money – described in court documents as a ‘lender of last resort’ – and Ms Issa led to the caveat being withdrawn in exchange for $40,000.

The Morecrofts, unaware of any of this, then settled the contract on the property on June 1, 2018 and went to transfer the title to their name.

But they were unable to do so because a second caveat was placed by Ms Issa alleging the house had been ‘fraudulently mortgaged’. 

She also lodged a police report about the alleged fraud.

The Supreme Court in February found the mortgage on the house was ‘procured by the fraud of another person’.

The court also heard the lenders were ‘wholly inadequate’ in their efforts to verify whether or not Ms Issa had agreed to her house being put up as security. 

The court ruled the house still belonged to Ms Issa, who has Alzheimer’s and was represented in court by her adult daughter. 

‘I guess it’s just shown us, you can buy a house at auction, you can settle on that house … you can pay for that house and you still might not get that house,’ Mr Morecroft told the ABC last April.

The couple has already spent $300,000 in legal fees and were concerned pursuing more legal action to reclaim their money could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

The Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General was contacted by Daily Mail Australia for comment.