The High Court dismissed an estate’s claim for the value of care allegedly owed to a deceased woman, finding the action was brought too late and that the estate had not proved any loss. In a separate action, the court declared void transfers of lands in County Clare from Noel Murray to his former wife, Angeline Murray, under the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.
Mr Justice Barr delivered judgment on 11 May 2022 in two related proceedings. In the maintenance action, Patrick Murray and Phil Anne Fitzgerald, personal representatives of Philomena Murray’s estate, pursued a claim based on a 1991 transfer of three folios to her son, Noel. The transfer required that Philomena and her husband be supported and maintained from the lands.
Philomena died on 30 September 2016. Her personal representatives said Noel had not provided the required support and that family members had cared for her. Phil Anne Fitzgerald estimated the value of that care at about €460,000. Noel accepted that he had not provided adequate support and that money was due to the estate, but the court found the evidence did not establish a specific loss or provide a sound basis for valuing the care.
The court held that the right of action accrued when the transfer was made in 1991 and became statute barred 12 years later. The proceedings were not begun until September 2016. The judge also found, alternatively, that the right was personal to Philomena and ended when she died. Even if damages could be recovered, they could not be added to the registered support burden to take priority over the bank’s judgment mortgage, registered in 2015.
The court therefore dismissed the maintenance action, refused damages despite an earlier default judgment against Noel and Angeline, and refused the requested priority declaration.
In the bank’s separate action, Allied Irish Banks sought to have the transfers set aside as fraudulent conveyances. Noel had transferred the folios into joint names with Angeline in April 2011, after receiving bank demands and being served with proceedings; in December 2011, he transferred his interest to her under a separation agreement. Noel and Angeline said the transfers were intended to protect their children’s interests, and Noel denied they were made to defeat creditors.
The judge found that Noel knew of the bank’s claims and that the transfers were intended, or would probably have the effect, of putting the lands beyond the bank’s reach. He also considered that Noel continued farming the lands and using a partly built house there years after the transfers. The court declared void the transfer of Noel’s interest in the lands in folios 8582, 10346 and 18371, and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims. It invited written submissions on costs within two weeks; the judgment did not determine costs.