The High Court has ruled that Heather Cody was bound by two Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank loans totalling €650,000, secured on the family home in Kilmurray, Gorey, County Wexford. Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy ordered possession of the property and judgment against her, while dismissing her separate claim against the Bank.
The ruling followed an eight-day plenary hearing in March 2025 that brought together three related cases: the Bank’s possession claim, its claim for repayment, and Mrs Cody’s proceedings against the Bank. She had argued that she did not know about or sign the 2005 loan and mortgage documents, and alleged that the loans were created through collusion. The Bank denied her case.
The judge found on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Cody knew about and agreed to the transaction, and signed the loan offers, solicitor’s undertakings and mortgage. He accepted evidence that she had discussed the proposed borrowing with solicitor Geraldine Carthy, received the loan offers and sought a letter confirming that she had received legal advice. He also found that she received €200,000 from the loan proceeds without querying its source. The judgment records that the purported witnesses to her signatures on the mortgage and solicitor’s undertakings had not actually witnessed them. The court did not have expert handwriting evidence.
The judge also held that Mrs Cody was estopped from denying that she had executed the agreements, based on her conduct in facilitating the transaction and accepting the payment. He allowed the Bank to amend its pleadings to include that argument. Separately, he said the Bank would have had an alternative claim for money had and received because loan funds discharged an existing mortgage and €200,000 was paid to Mrs Cody.
The court rejected Mrs Cody’s allegations of fraud, reckless lending, breach of duty and improper conduct in the litigation. It found no evidence that 40 accounts had been opened without her knowledge; the Bank’s discovery identified 13 accounts in her name, most closed. The judge also rejected her claim that the Bank had protected her former husband, Peter Cody, noting that the Bank already had possession and judgment orders against him and that a caution registered by Mrs Cody restricted enforcement against his office property.
The court ordered possession and said it would hear the parties about a stay, taking account of Mrs Cody’s two adult daughters, who live at the property and have special needs. It also ordered judgment against Mrs Cody but deferred setting the amount and hearing submissions on any stay. The judgment set a further hearing for 31 July 2025 to make final orders.