The High Court has ruled that executors could not settle a claim under section 117 of the Succession Act 1965 in a way that would reduce a beneficiary’s inheritance when that beneficiary objected. The court dismissed the executors’ application to approve their proposed settlement, leaving the children’s substantive claim undecided.
The proceedings concern the estate of M.K., who died in 1999. His three adult children brought the claim. One daughter, C., has severe epilepsy and is described in the judgment as incapable of managing her affairs. The other beneficiary who opposed the settlement, P., was identified in evidence as the testator’s partner. She lived with him during the last three years of his life and said she left work to care for him after he had strokes.
Under the will, P. received the agricultural land and the residue of the estate. The commercial property was left in equal shares to P. and the three children. The testator had also transferred a house site to himself and P. as joint tenants; she became solely entitled to the house by survivorship. The sons’ separate sites were conditional on planning permission, which had not been obtained.
The estate’s debts to AIB grew substantially after the testator’s death. In July 2009, the court approved the executors’ settlement of the bank indebtedness for €95,000, without deciding how that liability should be shared between the estate and P. The executors later proposed to abandon a claim against P. for a contribution, sell the agricultural land and commercial units, and divide the net estate 50% to C., 20% to P. and 15% each to the two sons. The proposal also covered legal costs and required court approval of any settlement of C.’s claim.
P. opposed the application, arguing that the executors lacked power to settle the section 117 claim against her wishes. Justice Laffoy agreed. She held that the statute gives the court sole discretion to decide whether a testator failed in the required moral duty and, if so, what provision is just. Executors could present a settlement agreed by all affected adults with capacity for the court to rule on, but they could not impose a compromise that diminished an objecting beneficiary’s share. The court also said it had no jurisdiction to give directions on the proposed settlement.
The ruling did not determine whether the will made proper provision for the children or what, if anything, they should receive under section 117. The judge recorded the withdrawal of the separate section 121 claim concerning the house transfer and refused the children’s request to remit the section 117 case to the Circuit Court. She directed M., the daughter’s mother and next friend, to take immediate steps to have C. made a ward of court. Costs of the applications were reserved to the judge who will hear the substantive claim. The judge recommended that the case proceed on the affidavits already filed, while leaving the trial judge to decide whether any witness should be cross-examined.