THE HIGH Court has ruled that a 57-year-old man is entitled to a 120-acre farm of a man who turned out to be his biological father.
William Naylor, otherwise Hoare, claimed that he was promised the farm, which he had lived and worked on for more than 30 years, belonging to the late Michael Hoare.
However, a will executed by Mr Hoare some months before his death in 2007 aged 82 bequeathed the farm to his daughter and Mr Naylor’s sister, Jean Maher, who had cared for the late Mr Hoare in his latter years.
Mr Naylor argued that he had been promised the farm by Mr Hoare, who he only discovered was his biological father after his death, and took an action against Mrs Maher (58), of The Crescent, Townsend Street, Birr, Co Offaly.
In a lengthy judgment Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe ruled that Mr Naylor, of Lelagh, Rathcabbin, Derrylahan, Roscrea, Co Tipperary, but originally from Birr in Co Offaly, had established a legal claim and was entitled to the lands at Derrylahan.
The judge said that for many years Mr Naylor was entitled to the land as he had worked the farm for “minimal remuneration” and Mr Hoare had promised him on many occasions that he would leave him the property.
The judge, however, said Mr Naylor had “failed to establish” that the will of Mr Hoare, who allegedly suffered from a number of physical and mental-health conditions, was procured under duress and undue influence by Mrs Maher.
Speaking through his solicitor, Cahir O’Higgins, Mr Naylor declined to make any comment on the ruling. However, Mr O’Higgins said the case, which lasted several weeks in the High Court, had been “a difficult matter for all involved”.
In his action Mr Naylor sought orders from the court, including that the agreement between him and Mr Hoare over the land be specifically carried out, and another setting aside Mr Hoare’s will of November 2006.
In that will Mr Naylor was left €150,000, while the defendant, who was named executrix of the will, was left the 120-acre farm. A previous will executed by Mr Hoare in 2005 left the lands to Mr Naylor.
Mr Naylor’s lawyers wanted the 2006 will deemed null and void, claiming it was not executed in accordance with provisions of the succession Act.
Mrs Maher denied all the claims against her. In her counterclaim she sought an order declaring Mr Hoare’s 2006 will as the true and original last will and testament of the deceased.
She also sought various orders against Mr Naylor, including one that he hand over vacant possession of the farm to her.
In his judgment Mr Justice O’Keeffe said Mr Naylor, who was a truthful witness, left school at a very early age before moving to Dublin and working in various jobs. He returned to work the farm “at the expressed wishes” of Mr Hoare.
The judge said he was satisfied that Mr Hoare promised Mr Naylor on a number of occasions that he would leave him the farm. The judge also accepted the evidence of other witnesses that Mr Hoare had promised Mr Naylor the land.
That commitment by Mr Hoare to Mr Naylor was “life-long”, the judge said. Mr Naylor, who also received little money for his work, had worked the lands to his detriment, the judge added.
The court noted evidence that Mr Hoare, who married Mr Naylor’s mother in the 1980s, was Mr Naylor’s father. Mr Naylor had believed that he was his stepson.
The man he thought was his father – Oliver Naylor – moved to England in the 1950s. He had no memory of meeting his supposed father, who died in 1977.
Mrs Maher’s and Mr Naylor’s mother, Eileen, had a relationship with Mr Hoare over a long number of years. They were married in 1981 and resided together at Military Road, Birr, until she died in 2001. After that, until the time of his death, Mrs Maher had cared for Mr Hoare.
The judge said there was no evidence that duress or undue influence had been put on Mr Hoare by Mrs Maher, and dismissed the application to have the 2006 will set aside.
However, he found Mrs Maher’s “evidence and demeanour to the court as a whole unco-operative and designed to confuse”. She had been informed by their mother that Mr Hoare was their father. However, she did not tell Mr Naylor this. The judge said her evidence as to why she did not impart this information to Mr Naylor was “unimpressive”. If she had, Mr Naylor could have taken up the matter with Mr Hoare before his death in 2007. The issue of costs of the action was adjourned to November.