Crystal healer Moya Montgomerie says millionaire son Jason Minns threatened to make her homeless in £2m property dispute

An elderly “crystal healer” is embroiled in a High Court fight with her millionaire son, who she claims threatened to leave her “on the streets” amid a bitter £2million dispute over money and property.

Moya Montgomerie, 72, alleges her son Jason Minns, 55, is an “arch manipulator” who has spent his adult life “exploiting her guilt” over her divorce from his father to obtain large sums of money in loans.

She alleges Mr Minns threatened homelessness and prevented her from seeing her grandchildren in order to secure cash for her lifestyle and property investments.

Ms Montgomerie is now suing to recover the £1 million she says is owed to her, as well as demanding the mortgage be paid and the deeds transferred to her £1 million Hampshire home. He claims the property belongs to him, although it is registered in the names of Mr Minns and his wife Stephanie, 54.

The Reiki therapist, crystal healer and “angel card” reader says she agreed to turn over the house to pay off some of her son’s debts, but has since turned it down, declaring she would “see him on the streets” instead.

However, Mr Minns and his wife are appealing the case. Ms Montgomerie was a “serial liar” and actually owed money to her son, her lawyers told Mr Justice Richard Smith.

Mr Minns claims most of the things his mother gave him were “gifts”.

Although he has agreed to sell the substantial detached house in Ibworth Lane, Fleet, to his mother and stepfather Dick Houtzagers, he insists he will not do so until his mother pays him the £310,000 he claims he is owed.

The case recently reached court for a preliminary hearing, and the judge, citing “terrible family history,” added: “The son calls the mother a serial liar and the mother calls the son the chief manipulator.”

Ms Montgomerie, who specialized in a variety of alternative therapies, had a difficult start in life, having been raised in “poverty” by her older brother after losing her parents when she was 12, according to documents presented in court.

She had a son when she was just 17, but her marriage to his father did not last long and they divorced in the 1980s, leaving Mr Minns with his father.

“Jason knows Moya’s past and the guilt she feels over the divorce and remaining with her father despite spending time with her mother,” her attorney, Helen Brander, says in the request documents.

“He used this guilt for financial gain throughout his adult life.

“There have been requests from Moya on many and various occasions for financial assistance by means of loans to assist with his and his wife’s living expenses and/or to use as liquid funds for investment, on many and varied occasions… and Moya has responded to and complied with these requests on many and varied occasions, too numerous to list in detail.”

Ms Montgomerie claims that when she inquired about her son’s need for money in the past, she was “yelled at” and met with threats to leave her grandchildren or be “kicked out” of what used to be the home of Mr Minns and Stephanie and is still in their name, leaving her “destitute”.

This behavior “had a subjugating effect on Moya”, which “exploited the trust, confidence and fear of rejection” her mother had in her, the lawyer says.

Miss Montgomerie claims she lent her son £600,000 by 2008 and a further £500,000 thereafter so he could pay the mortgage on the house he and Stephanie lived in before Miss Montgomerie moved out.

The property is in the names of Mr Minns and Stephanie, but Ms Montgomerie claims an agreement was made for the property to be transferred to her in exchange for writing off £750,000 of outstanding loans she says her son and his partner owed her.

Despite this they have since refused to sign the contract and the mortgage on the property remains unpaid.

“Plaintiffs allege that the defendants acted in bad faith against the plaintiffs and that they had and continue to have the means to enforce the claim and their obligations,” the attorney said.

Ms Montgomerie is suing, demanding the house be signed off and she be paid more than £1 million to cover outstanding loans, mortgage payments she says she mistakenly made after 2008, and compensation for a loan she says she received in exchange for another property she owns.

But barrister Lauren Kreamer, for Mr Minns and Stephanie, denies they have done anything wrong or that Ms Montgomerie owes over £40,000 in loans, which should be offset by what she owes them.

In the couple’s written defense of the case, they said, “They always acted in good faith towards the plaintiffs.”

“Their position is that any sum given, apart from the loans of £40,000… was a gift.

“It is expressly denied that loans or gifts were given by Moya totaling £600,000.”

Regarding the dispute over ownership of the house, he continued: “It was alleged that the parties’ common intention was that if Moya and Dick were to reside at Ibworth Lane, they would purchase the property from Jason and Stephanie on terms to be agreed between the parties.”

He said £500,000 was paid by Mrs Montgomerie as the £750,000 purchase price for the house, while £250,000 was loaned to her by her son and daughter-in-law for the rest.

“It is accepted that they did not transfer legal title to Ibworth Lane to Moya or repay the mortgage,” the lawyer said.

“They were denied the right to do so in circumstances where the Ibworth Lane loan had not been repaid.”

He says the young couple still owe £250,000 on a loan, plus £60,000 in interest and £25,000 they spent on the house.

Defending other aspects of the claim, he said Mr Minns was entitled to a loan on the property in Ms Montgomerie’s name because it was held in trust for him.

And the “mortgage installments” that Mrs Montgomerie falsely claimed to have paid at Ibworth Lane were actually interest payments on a debt she owed to her son and daughter-in-law.

The case recently reached court for a preliminary hearing after Ms Montgomerie applied for an order preventing the couple from “dispersing” their assets pending resolution of the dispute.

In court, his lawyer, Ms Brander, claimed there was a “real risk of disintegration” that would make it difficult for him to get justice if he went on to win the case.

He pointed out that Mr Minns had quickly sold a property, allegedly for less than its value.

“It’s very sad for him… He has no hesitation in making sure he achieves his own goals,” Ms. Brander said.

“Solding properties under value during these cases will result in my client being left on the streets, as Mr. Minns said.”

Mr Minns, sitting in court, shook his head as the charge was made.

Her lawyer, Ms. Kreamer, objected to the claim regarding the freezing order, saying that there was no risk of dispersion because the properties from which they derived their income were in a series.

Buying and selling real estate is also part of the business they are involved in and therefore is not suspicious.

Dismissing the application, Mr Justice Richard Smith said he was “not convinced there was a real risk of dispersal”.

The case will proceed with a full trial of both parties’ claims unless an agreement is reached first.