The High Court has ruled that a widow was entitled to exclusive use and occupation of her late husband’s remaining real property for her lifetime, under the terms of his will. The ruling interpreted the will; the court had not yet settled the form of its order.
The application was brought by Ellen McGuinness, widow of Owen McGuinness, who died in 2002 aged 88. His will gave her the dwelling house, including specified gardens, outbuildings and farm buildings. It also devised the remainder of his real property jointly to her and their five children, subject to a €100,000 payment in her favour and her right to use and occupy that property for life, free of charge.
The dispute concerned what that lifetime right meant. The executors, Michael Sherry and Teddy Gillanders, took a neutral position. Their affidavit described practical questions about how the beneficiaries’ interests should be registered and whether the right to use and occupy amounted to a life tenancy. The court said the issue would be decided on affidavit and that extrinsic evidence would not be admitted to interpret the will.
McGuinness argued that the use-and-occupation clause gave her a right beyond her joint one-sixth interest, excluding the other joint owners from the remaining lands during her lifetime. The defendants’ position, as recorded in the judgment, was that her share already carried a right to use the property and the clause added nothing; they said her interpretation would effectively amend the will.
Justice John MacMenamin concluded that the testator intended to give his wife an additional right over and above the interests devised to the children. He reasoned that the €100,000 charge was itself an additional benefit and that the lifetime use-and-occupation provision should also have effect. Reading it as no more than a shared right, he said, would leave that provision inoperative.
The judge held that the clause provided for Ellen’s exclusive possession of the remaining property for her lifetime, free of charge. He said this interpretation could be expressed by reading the omitted word “exclusive” into the devise to resolve a possible ambiguity. The judgment ended with the judge stating that he would hear counsel on the form of the order; it does not record a final order in the source provided.