A Circuit Court judge dismissed a woman’s claim to the full interest in her late mother’s home in Portmarnock, finding that she had not proved either a written 2003 agreement or a verbal promise that the property would be left to her outright.
The equity civil bill was issued in April 2021. The plaintiff, the deceased woman’s only child, claimed that she had transferred her interest in neighbouring land known as St. Declan’s to her son in 2003 in return for her mother’s promise to leave her the Woodview property. She also said she had spent more than €500,000 improving the home.
Under the deceased’s 2016 will, the plaintiff received a life interest in Woodview, with the remainder going to her son, who is executor of the estate. The will also gave him an absolute interest in a garage and workshop on the property. The plaintiff sought to enforce the alleged agreement or, alternatively, to rely on proprietary estoppel.
The defendant disputed the agreement’s validity and said he had not known of it before the litigation. The court heard evidence from the plaintiff, two relatives who supported parts of her account, and the defendant. The original agreement was not produced. The plaintiff said it had been kept at the home and later disappeared; her legal team acknowledged it could no longer identify the best copy received from her.
Judge Jennifer O’Brien said the court was not satisfied with the document’s provenance. The best available copy had not been produced despite a notice to produce, accounts differed about how the document was created, and the signature attributed to the deceased closely resembled her signature on a 2013 will. The judge concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the document had not been shown to be an agreement executed by the deceased.
The judge also found that the evidence did not establish a verbal agreement on which the plaintiff relied to her detriment, or a clear promise that she would receive the entire property. The plaintiff’s life interest under the 2016 will meant she could continue to benefit from improvements to the home during her lifetime, the judgment said.
The court dismissed the claim, condemned the purported 2003 agreement and struck down the plaintiff’s caveat against the estate. It made no order requiring her to account for or deliver up estate assets. The court declared that the defendant was entitled to use and enjoy the garage, extension, shed and workshop identified in the 2016 will, and awarded him costs against the plaintiff, to be taxed if the parties could not agree.