The High Court has ruled that a bequest in John Shannon’s will to his friend Henry Shannon covered farmland registered in two adjoining Cork folios, rejecting the executor’s claim that the gift was ambiguous or void for uncertainty.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice MacGrath on 12 April 2019, answered questions brought by Andrew Shannon, the deceased’s nephew and executor. The dispute concerned the meaning of a clause giving Henry Shannon “my dwellinghouse and farm of lands at Moulamill with stock and contents and farm entitlements”.
John Shannon died in 2013. His will, made in 2011, left the residue of his estate to Andrew. The farm property comprised lands in Folios 22769 and 60662, both in Glanlough, County Cork. The house where John Shannon lived was on Folio 22769; Folio 60662 contained a derelict, uninhabited house known locally as Dick’s Place.
Andrew argued that the will’s references to a single dwelling house and to Moulamill did not clearly identify which folio was given to Henry. He said the other folio should pass to him under the residuary clause, or, alternatively, that the gift should be declared void for uncertainty. Henry argued that the deceased treated the adjoining lands and a share in commonage as one farm.
The court heard affidavit and oral evidence, including from the solicitor who drafted the will and engineers who described the land. The solicitor recalled instructions referring to a farm and dwelling house at Brahalish and believed the deceased intended to leave an outside farm to Andrew. But he had not checked the folios and was unaware of the specific locations of the lands. The court also heard competing evidence about access and whether the two holdings had been used as one farm.
The judge first considered whether the will was ambiguous on its face, as required before extrinsic evidence could assist in its construction. Reading the relevant clause with the rest of the will, he found it described the deceased’s dwelling house and “farm of lands” as a single gift. The will did not divide the stock, contents or farm entitlements between the folios. The court was not persuaded that the singular reference to a dwelling house or the residuary clause created an ambiguity. It found that the deceased farmed the lands in both folios as one unit.
The court held that the specific gift to Henry included both Folio 22769 and Folio 60662. It answered the executor’s uncertainty question by rejecting the argument that the devise was void. The judgment resolved the two questions before the court; it did not determine the separate Circuit Court proceedings concerning administration of the estate or Andrew’s position as executor.