The High Court ordered James Reynolds to give up possession of a family home in Possexton, County Meath, after rejecting his claim that he had acquired the property by adverse possession. The order followed his appeal against a Circuit Court injunction concerning the house and land in Folio 21280.
The appeal was heard in Trim on 5 and 6 October 2009. Mr Justice Henry Abbott delivered judgment on 11 February 2011. At a further hearing on 22 February, the court settled the terms of the order, including a stay on possession until 1 September 2011.
The property had been registered in the name of Matthew Reynolds, who died intestate in 1980. His widow, Evelyn, and their five children were entitled to shares in his estate. The judgment records that no formal assent was made transferring the registered property to Evelyn. Catherine Dolan later received a grant to administer the unadministered part of her father’s estate. James Reynolds received a grant to administer his mother’s estate.
Catherine brought proceedings seeking possession so the property could be sold and the estate administered. James said he had lived there since 1978, cared for his mother, and paid for extensive repairs and improvements. He claimed the family had agreed to or accepted the work, and argued that delay and limitation rules barred the claim. The judgment recounts competing evidence about whether he excluded family members from the property and whether his mother and siblings knew of or supported the work.
The judge found that James had not possessed the land to the exclusion of his father, mother, or siblings for the period needed to establish adverse possession. The court also rejected his argument that the absence of an assent meant he had acquired title, and concluded that the claim for work done for his father was statute barred. It upheld compensation of €60,000 for work carried out between 19 January 2002 and 18 May 2004, subject to the conditions set out in the judgment.
The final order declared Catherine, as administrator of her father’s estate, entitled to possession, and James not entitled to the property by adverse possession. It required him to vacate on 1 September 2011, hand over keys and other items needed for possession, and allow access for inspections and prospective purchasers. He was barred from carrying out further work. Catherine was directed to administer her father’s estate after receiving possession. The €60,000 compensation was conditional on James administering his mother’s estate and paying the next of kin their appropriate shares; €6,000 in appeal costs could be set off against that sum, with payment of the costs stayed until compensation was paid subject to the set-off.