The High Court has found that Kathleen Grady McLaughlin did not establish that her late husband’s will remained effective for his apartment in Kinsale after their marriage. The court did not make a definitive determination on whether the marriage revoked the will.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 15 April 2013, concerned Thomas J. McLaughlin’s Irish immovable property. He died in 2011, leaving an apartment in Kinsale. His will had been made in 2006, more than three years before his 2009 marriage to Kathleen Grady McLaughlin. The original will could not be found, and only a certified copy remained.
The applicant sought the court’s direction on whether the marriage revoked the will. A separate probate application to admit the copy had previously been declined, with the proceedings adjourned generally and liberty to re-enter. The present special summons was brought without a named defendant or respondent, and no person opposing the application appeared as a contradictor.
The applicant’s case relied on Rhode Island law, under which a subsequent marriage presumptively revokes a prior will unless it was made in contemplation of that marriage. Her attorney, Joseph M. Klements, said the deceased had made the will in contemplation of eventual marriage and later reaffirmed his intention that it fund a trust. The court noted that this account was hearsay evidence. In the will and a trust declaration made on the same day in 2006, the deceased described the applicant as his “beloved friend.”
The court also considered whether Irish law might apply because the will concerned land here. Section 85 of the Succession Act 1965 provides that a later marriage revokes a will, except one made in contemplation of that marriage. The judgment said the conflict-of-laws issue had not been adequately argued and that the applicable principles were unclear. It also noted there was no evidence establishing the deceased’s domicile at the relevant times.
Justice Laffoy said the evidence did not establish that the will was made in contemplation of the marriage, whether Rhode Island law or the Irish statutory rule applied. But, given the procedural circumstances, evidential gaps and unresolved legal question, she considered a definitive ruling inappropriate. The court’s limited finding was that the applicant had not established that the will was not revoked insofar as it concerned the Irish property. The judgment did not decide the separate question of admitting the certified copy to probate, and said the practical problem of administering the apartment remained.