The High Court has ruled that a bequest of land in County Westmeath failed and that the land falls into the deceased’s residuary estate. The court was asked to construe a clause in a will; it did not order a sale or decide how the residuary estate should ultimately be distributed.
Christopher Corrigan died in March 2000, leaving five children. His 1997 will gave his son Sean the benefit of land in Folio 13658, comprising about 21 acres. It said that if the land was acquired for residential or industrial development, the net sale proceeds would be divided equally among all the children, while any part not acquired would become Sean’s property.
The will stated that the land, or part of it, was zoned for residential or industrial development. The court found that this was mistaken: at the time the will was made, the land was zoned for agricultural use. Part was rezoned in April 2005 as a special district for business and enterprise development, and part for open space. The court noted that residential development was not permitted in the special district.
In interpreting the clause, Mr Justice Brian McGovern considered notes made by the deceased’s solicitor when taking instructions. They recorded that the farm was to go to Sean, but that any part sold for residential or commercial purposes would be shared equally among the children. The judge said the notes and will suggested the deceased wanted Sean to retain land remaining in agricultural use, while the children shared a windfall if land was rezoned and sold or acquired. However, uncertainty remained about what “acquisition” meant and whether the other children could require a sale.
The judge held that the clause created a determinable fee simple, rather than a bequest subject to a condition. He found the specified determining event void for uncertainty and said the bequest also failed because it was made on a mistake of fact that the court could not rectify. The court therefore held that the subject matter fell into the residuary estate.
The judgment answered questions raised in a special summons seeking guidance for administering the estate. It did not identify the recipients of the residuary estate in its concluding order.