Brutal moment Vanessa Amorosi’s estranged mother is forced to face the unimaginable truth about their family feud – as a lawyer paints a clearer picture of her potential future: ‘Where would I go?’

For a moment, the bleak reality of what might await the estranged mother of Australian singer Vanessa Amorosi was unimaginable.

While Joylene Robinson’s bitter feud with her celebrity daughter has been building for years to this point, in the Supreme Court of Victoria last week, she was in denial.

She and her husband Peter – the man Amorosi loved more than her biological father – would be thrown out on the street if the judge ruled in her daughter’s favor.

Ms Robinson spent days in the witness box telling her lawyer how Amorosi had struck a deal to give her the 20-acre property she has lived on for decades, atop the rolling green hills of posh Narre Warren North, 36km south-east of Melbourne. Central Business District.

But it was Amorosi’s lawyer Philip Solomon KC who brought home the cold hard facts of what was at stake.

He got up to cross-examine Mrs. Robinson, got straight to the point.

“If his honor issues orders to the effect that the house is Vanessa’s, you will be happy to tell his honor that you will obey those orders?” he asked.

‘Excuse me, is this a question for me?’ Mrs. Robinson answered.

“Did you not understand my question?” Mr. Solomon replied, before explaining it in simpler terms.

“You’ll be moving out of the estate, allowing Vanessa to deal with it, that’s right,” he suggested.

“No,” came Mrs. Robinson’s stern reply.

“I’m sorry I didn’t hear your answer,” Mr. Solomon replied, despite it being said loud and clear to everyone in the courtroom.

‘Did you agree or did you say no?’

“I said I’ll let her come and get the things she wants, yes, but are you going to tell me I’m going to have to move out?” Where would I go?’ Mrs. Robinson answered.

It was an answer that set the tone for what would become a grueling ordeal for Amorosi’s mother, who should have known all too well what the final outcome might be.

Ms Robinson was a cleaner when Amorosi made it big at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

It’s a job she’s maintained to this day, taking home about $1,000 a week for her efforts.

She has no other assets contained in the contested Narre Warren North estate.

A civil trial heard Amorosi earned just under $1 million in 2001 after he exploded onto the screens during the 2000 Olympics.

But by the end of 2014, she was evicted from her properties in the United States after seemingly running out of cash.

Last week, Amorosi denied ever gifting the property to her mother, who she said she always referred to as her “dream home.”

Ms. Robinson claims that Amorosi promised to buy her the property for $650,000 – money that he would pay back to his daughter whenever she asked.

Amorosi, 42, filed a claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2021, alleging “negligent conduct” by her mother.

The court heard the singer believes her mother exploited her wealth at the height of her popularity when she was young.

“She’s very generous with my money,” Amorosi said.

Amorosi said in court that she was brainwashed into believing that her mother was the only person she could trust to handle the millions of dollars she made after becoming a star.

‘The boys were the enemy, the husband was the enemy. She was supposed to be the only one there with the right intentions and I believed in that,” she said.

Amorosi, who flew to Australia from her home in Los Angeles to attend the trial, hired forensic accountants to investigate her mother’s handling of her fortune in 2014.

While the main battle concerns the Nar Warren North estate, Amorosi’s home in the US – which is owned by a family company that also owes $650,000 to Westpac Bank – is also at stake.

Mr. Solomon sat quietly for days as Ms. Robinson’s lawyer, Daniel Harrison, carefully guided Amorosi’s mother through her testimony.

It was a tearful account of a mother who claimed she had done everything for her daughter.

Ms. Robinson said she was shut out of Amorosa’s life, despite her efforts to keep her financially afloat during the tough times.

Now on his feet, Mr. Solomon asked his question again.

This time Mrs. Robinson answered in the affirmative.

For the next 45 minutes, Mr. Solomon demanded that she simply answer his questions.

“You’re avoiding my question,” he insisted calmly.

“Stop avoiding my question, stop making speeches, don’t add editorials, stop being passive,” Mr. Solomon insisted under cross-examination.

Much of his grilling centered on a key meeting in 2001 in which Ms Robinson claimed her daughter made an important statement that the Nar Warren North estate, which the singer had bought with her own money, was meant for her.

Mrs Robinson was forced to admit that previous claims that her husband had heard of the deal were not true.

“I’m trying to remember the truth here. It was a long time ago,” she said in court.

But when asked repeatedly to clarify what was said during that conversation, Ms Robinson said she could not remember.

“Word for word, I can’t tell you … she was going to buy the property and it was going to be mine,” she said.

“It was supposed to be my family home.” She was buying my house.’

Amorosi could not hide her despair throughout the trial, both in the witness box and sitting in the courtroom.

She was silent as she walked in and out of the court, but inside she was sobbing and reaching for a tissue.

The trial before Judge Stephen Moore ends next week.