A widower’s actions leading to his only son acquiring his home in Raheny is subject of a High Court challenge by one of his 10 daughters.
Judge Siobhán Stack refused a pretrial application to halt a probate action by Eileen Martin against her brother, James John Horan, and sister, Antoinette Horan, in their capacity as executors of the estate of their father, James Horan.
The action relates to a 2008 will made by James Horan, Bettyglen, Raheny, who died in October 2016, and a 2001 deed of conveyance making the deceased’s son a joint tenant of the property.
The will provided that the Bettyglen property would be given to the son on condition the latter sold his own home and put the proceeds into his father’s estate, with the residue to be divided between the son and nine of his sisters.
READ MORE
If the son refused the bequest of the Bettyglen property on the terms set out, the estate was to be divided equally between him and the same nine sisters.
One daughter, Maura, was excluded because the deceased had said in his will that “she has already benefited substantially from me during my lifetime”.
In a recently published judgment, Stack said the validity of the will is not in dispute but the deceased did not have power to provide for conditional disposal of his home to his son because, via the 2001 deed of conveyance, he had already made him a joint tenant of the property.
As a result of the 2001 deed, the property passed to the son by survivorship and did not go into the deceased’s estate, the judge said.
A grant of probate issued in February 2021 and, on distribution of the estate, Eileen Martin’s share was about €11,421, Stack noted.
Proceedings were initiated in 2022 by Martin and two of her sisters, Harriet Hyrrell, and Patricia Condron, against their brother and sister Antoinette as executors.
In the proceedings, now discontinued by Hyrrell and Condron but maintained by Martin, orders are sought setting aside the 2001 deed on grounds including presumed undue influence, actual undue influence and/or improvidence and declaring the house forms part of the deceased’s estate. An order inviting the parties to seek mediation or other dispute resolution process is also sought.
The defendants had argued no reasonable cause of action was disclosed and delay in prosecution warranted dismissal.
In refusing to dismiss, Stack rejected arguments Martin lacked sufficient legal standing to seek relief. If the bid to set aside the 2001 deed is successful, Martin will stand to receive a much greater benefit under the will, she said.
That deed may never be set aside, but so far, nothing had been revealed either in a sworn statement or correspondence before the court to explain the circumstances in which that deed was executed, said Stack.
While “not entirely clear” at present, it appeared it was only after Horan’s death it was appreciated the 2001 deed had been executed, the judge said. The will itself proceeded on the basis the house was in sole ownership of the deceased and not held jointly with his son, she added.
The delay in prosecuting the claim was due to active delay by the defendants in failing to deliver documents required for this case, the judge held.
She could not “in justice” halt the case, concluded Stack. When making his will, Horan seemed to have proceeded on the “entirely erroneous” belief he was the sole owner of his home and could dispose of it in his will. His testamentary capacity, as she understood it, was not questioned and therefore the deceased’s understanding called for explanation.
If the defendants take up the offer of mediation, directions to progress the hearing of the case would be stayed to allow for mediation to occur, the judge added.
