MacDonald v Norris
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | BARRON J. |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] IESC 132 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 25 November 1999 |
[1999] IESC 132
THE SUPREME COURT
Barrington J.
Keane J.
Barron J.
Citations:
SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S117
H (J) V AIB LTD 1978 ILRM 203
SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S117(1)
SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S117(2)
Synopsis
Succession
Succession; moral obligation of parent towards child; ill feeling between parent and child; application to the court for relief under s.117, Succession Act, 1965; whether and to what extent should account be taken of bad feeling between the parent and child in deciding whether a moral obligation still exists between parent and child; what would have satisfied the moral obligation of the parent to the child in the particular circumstances; whether the conduct of the applicant has extinguished his moral claim over the estate of the deceased; whether the applicant had received any benefits in satisfaction of his moral claim against the deceased.
Held: Relief granted; account should be taken of the bad feeling, but a moral obligation did still exist between the applicant and the deceased.
McDonald v. Norris - Supreme Court: Barrington J., Keane J., Barron J.- 25/11/1999 - [1999] 4 IR 313 - [2000] 1 ILRM 382
The behaviour of a child and the existence of bad feeling between a parent and child could be taken into account in assessing the obligation of the parent. Although the behaviour of the plaintiff was at times appalling, the background and reasons for the same could not be ignored, and while the moral obligation of the deceased had been diminished it had not been extinguished. So held by the Supreme Court allowing the plaintiff’s appeal and determining that the entire of the remaining lands pass to him, but on condition that he pay the defendant a sum of money as if it had been a pecuniary legacy.
JUDGMENT delivered on the 25th day of November 1999 by BARRON J. [NEM DISS]
This is an application pursuant to the provisions of s. 117 of the Succession Act, 1965brought by the plaintiff who is the eldest son of the deceased in the title hereof.
The applicant is a farmer now aged fifty having been born on the 8th April, 1949. His father was a substantial farmer who in turn had inherited 465 acres from his father. This land was in a number of holdings. The largest was one of 156 acres. There was also a farm of 124 acres, and the residential portion and home farm comprised 114 acres as well as two smaller holdings comprising a further 64 acres. The deceased farmed the lands until the year 1963 when he was involved in a motor car accident. He sustained severe injuries to one of his legs which left it shorter than the other. As a result he was unable to drive and also unable actively to work the lands. At the time of the accident the applicant was fourteen and his younger brother was aged twelve.
The applicant had just started technical school. However, with his father unable to work the lands he was taken out of school and he and his mother with some help two to three days a week ran the farm. His mother died in 1968 at the age of forty-eight and thereafter the applicant ran the farm with the same help. Work on the farm involved feeding cattle, sowing and cutting corn and milking dairy cows.
The deceased never got over his wife's early death and over the next ten years or so spent increasing periods with his late wife's sister and her family (the Norrises) until in the late 1970s he took up residence with that family permanently.
From the time that the deceased could no longer work the farm his sole interest lay with horses. He bought and sold horses which he grazed on the farm. He was a good judge of horse flesh and spent much of his time judging at horse shows. He also kept cattle on the lands.
The applicant's brother married in 1978 and now has two children. At the time of his marriage he left the farm. He had not been interested in farming and obtained employment and ultimately became a skilled glass cutter.
The applicant married in January, 1981. The deceased did not go to his wedding and appears to have had a serious dislike of his wife's family.
The plaintiff's marriage appears to have created serious bad feeling between himself and his father. In August, 1981 the deceased consulted his solicitor for the purpose of instructing him to bring proceedings to eject the applicant from the deceased's lands. The reason given to the solicitor was that he was determined as is recorded by the solicitor in an attendance on his client given in evidence "that not one inch would the Irish'set.
The Irish's were the applicant's wife's family.
In accordance with his instructions the solicitor, Simon Kennedy, wrote to the applicant by letter dated 18th August, 1981 seeking vacant possession of the lands.
In or about this time both the applicant and his younger brother sought to get their father to transfer lands to each of them. It appears that the solicitor also approached the applicant to see whether or not the claim for possession could be settled in some way.
As well as seeking possession of the lands, the deceased in October, 1981 sold his cattle which were grazed on the lands amounting to 140 head in all. In or around this time also the applicant and his brother sought to force the deceased's hand by refusing to kennel the pack belonging to a local hunt of which the deceased was Master.
In August, 1982 there was a serious incident on the farm. It appears that the deceased and Mr. Norris were seeking to take hay from the farm and that the applicant sought to prevent them. It is undisputed that Mr. Norris struck the applicant with a pitch fork which resulted in a wound requiring eighteen stitches. Unfortunately, as with the issue of the dogs the evidence does not delve sufficiently deeply to ascertain the full facts nor where the rights and wrongs of the matter lay. So far as the deceased was concerned the incident over the hay was the final insult and he again went to his solicitor to instruct him this time to issue the proceedings. Letters were written on the 4th August, 1982 and the 16th September, 1982 to no avail. Proceedings were then brought by way of civil bill on the 1st October, 1982.
The course of these proceedings is particularly unhappy. The applicant counterclaimed for remuneration for the periods during which he had been running the farm. Judgment was ultimately given in favour of the deceased for possession and in favour of the applicant on foot of his counterclaim for the sum of £11,000. Unfortunately, the applicant refused to leave the lands. He was ultimately attached and found himself in prison from August, 1986 to July, 1987.
While the applicant was in prison the deceased took possession of the holding of 156 acres which he sold for £90,000 to a friend at what is said to have been an undervalue. He also obtained possession of the holding of 124 acres which he transferred to his younger son. The applicant's wife remained in possession of the residential holding and the two smaller holdings which were worked with it.
It is not quite clear upon what terms the applicant purged his contempt in July, 1987. Suffice it to say that he was released from prison and apparently lived in some form of caravan adjoining the family farm. Whatever did happen thereafter he apparently got back into the farm and his father took no further action against him. His father died on the 15th November, 1993 having made a will on the 25th May, 1993 whereby he left the applicant the sum of £5,000 and the rest of his estate to the daughter of his wife's sister whom he made executrix of his will.
The applicant's claim failed in the High Court and the matter now comes before this Court by way of appeal from that refusal.
Until his marriage, the applicant appears to have received board and keep but no wages. The profits from the land and from the cattle and horses were taken by the deceased. From the time of his marriage, the applicant appears to have tilled some forty-five to fifty acres and also to have opened a quarry on the lands which were ultimately sold. He held the benefit of the profits from the tillage and the quarry subject to providing some of the corn for the deceased's horses.
After the judgment in 1984 effort was made through the local clergy to settle the argument between father and son. This did result in a moratorium...
To continue reading
Request your trial