The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the estate of Maureen Moore over the sale of a Dublin property, leaving in place findings that her stepchildren mistakenly relied on a death certificate belonging to another woman with the same name and that the purchaser was a bona fide buyer without notice.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Máire Whelan on 26 April 2018, concerned 100 Mount Tallant Avenue, Harold’s Cross. Moore and her husband were registered as joint owners in 1978. She left the property in 1982 and had no further contact with her husband or his children, the first and second respondents, according to the judgment.
After the husband died in January 1996, his children tried to locate Moore. The Court of Appeal noted evidence of letters to solicitors and institutions, enquiries through a telephone directory and a private investigator, and a check that Moore’s PRSI number was dormant. In 2000, Maria Moore found a death certificate for a woman named Maureen Moore who had died in 1995. The certificate was authentic but belonged to an unrelated person.
In 2002, Maria Moore used that certificate in a statutory declaration supporting the sale of the property to Nadine Chetty. The declaration said that the registered owners, John and Maureen Moore, were deceased. Moore was alive at the time. The High Court found the statement was a misrepresentation caused by mistake, but not fraud. It later awarded her €225,000 in damages against the first and second respondents. They did not appeal that award.
Moore’s estate appealed the finding on fraud, the conclusion that Chetty was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, and the costs order in her favour. The estate argued that the respondents had failed to make proper enquiries and that the property register should be rectified. The Court of Appeal said fraud required proof that the declaration was made knowingly false, without honest belief in its truth, or recklessly indifferent to whether it was true.
The appeal court held that the trial judge had heard and assessed the witnesses and was entitled to accept their evidence that they believed the certificate related to Moore. It found no basis to overturn the finding of mistake rather than fraud. It also upheld the finding that Chetty had purchased in good faith without notice, noting the statutory protections for purchasers from personal representatives. The High Court’s dismissal of the claim against Chetty and its costs order therefore remained undisturbed.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The judgment did not disturb the €225,000 damages award against the first and second respondents.