The High Court has refused to restore a former family home to the estate of Maureen Moore, finding that she remained a joint tenant when her estranged husband died but that the property’s later purchaser had acquired it for value without notice of the alleged fraud.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy said the court would hear the parties on damages arising from a mistake that deprived Ms Moore of her interest. The judgment did not determine any damages amount.
The dispute concerned a house at 100 Mount Tallant Avenue, Harold’s Cross, bought in the joint names of Ms Moore and John Moore. She said she had been forced to leave in 1982 because of her husband’s violence. She later lived in Antwerp and returned to Drogheda in 2002.
After John Moore died in 1996, his children, the first and second defendants, obtained letters of administration and sought to have the land register reflect that their father had been sole owner. They relied on a death certificate for another woman named Maureen Moore, who died in January 1995. The property was transferred to the third defendant in October 2002, and she later charged it to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited.
Ms Moore’s case alleged that the defendants had used the certificate to wrongly alter the register and sell the house. The first two defendants denied fraud and argued that her interest had been extinguished by adverse possession and limitation. The third defendant said she was the registered owner and a purchaser without notice.
The judge found no evidence of fraud or concealment by the first two defendants. He accepted that they had made efforts to locate Ms Moore, although they may have been less than thorough in distinguishing her from the other woman. But he found that their mistake in receiving and using the wrong death certificate led to the folio being changed and Ms Moore not being told of her husband’s death.
The judgment held that the joint tenancy had not been severed before John Moore died and that the 12-year period had not expired before proceedings were issued. It said the mistake prevented Ms Moore from asserting her rights and could give rise to an entitlement to damages and costs.
However, the judge refused her claim against the third defendant. He held that the register was conclusive evidence of her title and that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The bank’s registered charge could not be removed because it too had acquired rights for value without notice. The court therefore declined to rectify the register under section 31 of the Registration of Title Act 1964.