The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Sean Corrigan over his late father’s bequest of farmland in County Westmeath, declaring that the devise was void because the event intended to end his interest was uncertain.
In a judgment delivered on 5 October 2016, Ms Justice Laffoy said the will intended to give Sean Corrigan a determinable fee in 21 statute acres registered on Folio 13658. The clause allowed him to hold and enjoy the profits “until” the land was acquired for residential or industrial development. The Court found that wording was intended to limit the duration of his interest.
But the will did not make clear what counted as an acquisition, whether the testator meant compulsory acquisition or a sale, or whether the trigger could apply to one acquisition or several. The Supreme Court held the determining event was unclear and imprecise, and void for uncertainty. As a result, the entire devise had no effect.
The dispute began with a special summons issued in 2006 asking the High Court to construe the will. The High Court ruled in 2007 that the farmland fell into the residuary estate. Sean Corrigan appealed that decision. The Supreme Court’s order dismisses his appeal and declares that the personal representative holds the land on trust for Eoin (otherwise Owen) Corrigan, the residuary legatee.
The judgment noted that the will was to be construed by reference to circumstances at the testator’s death in March 2000. At that time, the farmland was not zoned for residential or industrial development. It was rezoned in 2005, but the Supreme Court said zoning did not resolve the uncertainty: the will tied the ending of Sean Corrigan’s interest to acquisition, not zoning.
The Court also considered notes recording the testator’s instructions to his solicitor. Those notes referred to land being “sold” and used different wording from the will. The Court held they could not clarify when the determining event would occur; they added to the uncertainty. It rejected the argument that interpreting the will as a whole, including its provisions for the testator’s residence and residue, changed the construction of the farmland clause.
The Court said it was unnecessary to answer every question raised in the original summons. Its declarations addressed the construction of the farmland clause and the resulting trust; it did not make a finding on whether the testator’s understanding of the land’s zoning was mistaken.