The High Court found that Marie Gibson and her late husband did not transfer their family home to their daughter, Pauline Gibson, in 2003 or 2009/2010. It also found that signatures attributed to the parents on later transfer documents were forged and that solicitor Kevin O’Gorman was negligent in his dealings with them.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cregan on 14 December 2022, followed a three-day trial on liability. The parties had agreed that questions including damages, the validity of the mortgage, possible injunctions against the receiver and any correction of title would be considered later if necessary.
The court heard that the Gibsons had lived in their Coolock home for decades and had intended to leave it equally to their five surviving children. In 2003, Pauline Gibson obtained a €190,000 loan from First Active secured against the property. The court found the parents received none of the loan proceeds. Mrs Gibson said she and her husband had agreed only to help their daughter, not to give or sell her their home. The judge accepted her evidence that they were not properly advised about the transaction.
O’Gorman acted for both the parents and their daughter. He conceded negligence during the trial after both sides’ conveyancing experts considered his conduct negligent. The judge found he failed to give adequate advice, did not recommend independent legal advice, and later altered dates on documents and represented that the parents had signed in his presence when they had not. The original file was missing; the court found it had probably been mislaid through lack of care.
Pauline Gibson did not defend the proceedings. The judge found that she had defrauded her parents and had exercised undue influence over them. The court also concluded there was no evidence that the parents signed a deed of transfer in 2003. It found the signatures on documents dated 22 May 2009 and later amended to 16 March 2010 were forged by Pauline Gibson or someone acting for her. The registered transfer therefore did not establish that the parents had transferred the home.
The court did not quantify damages or make final orders on the mortgage, possession, injunctions or title rectification in this judgment. It said the parties would consider the implications of the findings and that further evidence or submissions could be heard if required.