Michael Coyle v Matthew Finnegan Junior and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Laffoy
• Judgment Date: 25 October 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 463
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [No. 7678P/2008]
• Date: 25 October 2013

[2013] IEHC 463

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 7678P/2008]

Coyle v Finnegan

BETWEEN

MICHAEL COYLE

PLAINTIFF

AND

MATTHEW FINNEGAN JUNIOR AND FRANCIS FINNEGAN

DEFENDANTS

MCCARRON v MCCARRON UNREP SUPREME 13.2.1997 1997/4/1414

GILLETT v HOLT 2000 2 AER 289 2000 3 WLR 815 2000 1 FCR 705 2000 FLR 266

COLEMAN v MULLEN 2011 4 IR 603 2011/9/2026 2011 IEHC 179

DELANY EQUITY & THE LAW OF TRUSTS IN IRELAND 5ED 2011 759

PLIMMER v WELLINGTON CORP 1884 9 AC 699

CULLEN v CULLEN 1962 IR 268

MCMAHON v KERRY CO COUNCIL 1981 ILRM 419

THORNER v MAJOR 2009 3 AER 945 2009 1 WLR 776 2009 UKHL 18

COURTS ACT 1981 S22

CAMARA v MIN FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY & LAW REFORM & ORS UNREP KELLY 26.7.2000 2000/4/1247

High Court – Probate - Testator - Promise - Beneficiary - Grant of probate - Estate - Declaration - Moral duty - Specific performance - Contractual obligation - Services rendered - Quantum meruit - Ancillary orders - Proprietary estoppel - Profits - Detriment and reliance

Facts: These proceedings concerned the will of Peter Alphonsus O”Reilly (‘the Deceased’). The Deceased died on the 26th December 2007 and a grant of Probate of the last will of the Deceased issued to the defendants. The plaintiff initiated proceedings against the defendants, in their role as executors of the Deceased, on the basis that the Deceased failed to honour his promise to the plaintiff to devise and bequeath his farm at Folio 173F to him in exchange for work carried out and services provided from 1991 to 2003. The plaintiff sought an order of specific performance of the agreement he had with the Deceased; ancillary orders to register him as owner of Folio 173F; a declaration that the defendants held Folio 173F on trust for the plaintiff; a declaration that the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff”s entitlement to Folio 173F because of the Deceased”s conduct; ancillary orders to make the defendants account for any profits generated from Folio 173F since the death of the deceased; and, as an alternative remedy, the payment of €825,000 to the plaintiff by the defendants as quantum meruit basis for the services he provided. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to any of these reliefs.

It was undisputed that the Deceased had made a will on 12th August 1991, which bequeathed Folio 173F to the plaintiff. However, he made a second will on the 8th August 2003, which bequeathed €5,000 to the plaintiff ‘for assistance rendered to me some years ago’, whilst Folio 173F was bequeathed to the second named defendant instead. Evidence from the solicitor who drafted the will indicated that the Deceased had sought to make a new will because the plaintiff had ceased to work on the farm from 2000, whilst the second named defendant and his family had been helping since January 2003. A final will was made on the 14th September 2004 that was similar to the previous one, which revoked the €5,000 legacy to the plaintiff and split Folio 173F between the defendants. The plaintiff stated that the Deceased had informed him of the 1991 will, but not any subsequent will.

Held by Laffoy J that it was clear that at various times, the plaintiff and the defendants had spent a substantial amount of time helping the Deceased complete farm work. It was, however, determined that in order for the plaintiff to obtain specific performance of the agreement he had with the Deceased, that agreement had to have included an understanding that on the death of the Deceased, the plaintiff would become entitled to Folio 173F, irrespective of what happened in the interim. However, the plaintiff had admitted that at the time the agreement was made, the Deceased said he would let the plaintiff know if he changed his mind about the 1991 will. Because the Deceased had retained a discretion to vary the will, specific performance could not be obtained.

It was also held, however, that the plaintiff was entitled to be compensated on a quantum meruit basis for the services he provided to the Deceased between 1991 and 2000 because it was clear from the conduct of the Deceased that there had been an intention between the Deceased and the plaintiff to create legal relations as to the entitlement of the plaintiff to reasonable remuneration for services actually rendered to the Deceased, in the event that the Deceased revoked the 1991 will. A report from an agricultural consultant had determined that the work completed to the plaintiff between 1991 and 2000 was valued at €74,000, which the Court considered fair and reasonable. An award of €74,000 with interest from the date of judgment was, therefore, made to the plaintiff against the defendants. That sum and interest was also charged on the lands registered on Folio 173F until such amount was paid over on the basis of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

Ms. Justice Laffoy

1 These proceedings were initiated by a plenary summons which issued on 18^th September, 2008. In the statement of claim delivered on 23^rd September, 2008, it was made clear that the defendants were being sued as executors of Peter Alphonsus O'Reilly (the Deceased), who died on 26^th October, 2007. Although the grant of Probate was not put in evidence, the record in the Probate Office discloses that on 3^rd March, 2010 Probate of the last will of the Deceased issued from the District Probate Registry in Cavan to the defendants.

2 The core factual basis of the plaintiff's claim as pleaded is that from 1990, at the request of the Deceased, he provided services to the Deceased at his farm in County Cavan on the basis of an express or an implied promise by the Deceased that, in recompense for carrying out such work and providing services, the Deceased, rather than making payments to the plaintiff in respect thereof during his lifetime, would devise and bequeath the farm to the plaintiff by his will together with all livestock and machinery thereon at the date of his death. The statement of claim discloses that the Deceased's farm is registered on Folio 173F of the Register of Freeholders, County Cavan. It was pleaded that the plaintiff worked for and provided services to the Deceased from 1990 until about 2003. However, by the terms and provisions of his last will and testament the Deceased failed to honour his promise to the plaintiff. The following reliefs were sought by the plaintiff against the defendants in the prayer in the statement of claim:

3 (a) an order for specific performance, presumably on the basis that there was a contractual relationship between the Deceased and the plaintiff on foot of which it was agreed that the lands registered on Folio 173F and the livestock and machinery thereon at the date of the death of the Deceased would, on his death, be transferred to the plaintiff;

4 (b) ancillary orders the objective of which is to procure the registration of the plaintiff as the owner of the lands registered on Folio 173F;

5 (c) a declaration that the defendants hold the lands registered on Folio 173F upon a constructive trust or, alternatively, an implied, or resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff;

6 (d) a declaration that the defendants are estopped from denying the plaintiff's entitlement to be registered as beneficial owner of the lands registered on Folio 173F by reason of the conduct of the Deceased;

7 (e) ancillary orders the objective of which is to make the defendants account for the rents and profits of the lands from the date of the death of the Deceased; and

8 (f) as an alternative remedy, the payment of the sum of €825,000 by the defendants to the plaintiff "inquantum meruit and/or quantum valebat".

9 3. In their defence the defendants traversed all of the allegations made by the plaintiff and denied that he is entitled to the relief claim or any relief. There were no specific pleas in the defence and, in particular, it was not pleaded that any element of the claim was statute-barred.

10 4. The Deceased was born on 14^th February, 1935. He never married and he died a bachelor and without issue. He lived with his mother on the farm, which comprised of about fifty acres. His mother died in 1990. The plaintiff's evidence was that at that stage the Deceased, being totally dependent on his income from the farm, was anxious to increase the income. The plaintiff, who was his second cousin once removed had, while he was at school, helped the Deceased on the farm. The plaintiff's evidence was that by 1990 or 1991 the Deceased's hips "were annoying him". He needed help on the farm and he asked the plaintiff to help him. In August 1991 at an arranged meeting in a public house in Gowna he told the plaintiff, who was accompanied by his wife, that he needed his help on the farm, that he was going to make a will and he was going to leave "the place" to the plaintiff. He would have to get his hips done in the future. He would require the plaintiff to oversee the work and keep an eye on the place while he was away. If he changed his mind, he would let the plaintiff know. On the following day, the Deceased told him that the "job" was done, meaning that he had made his will.

11 5. The Deceased did in fact make a will on 12^th August, 1991 at the offices of George V. Maloney & Co., Solicitors, in Cavan. The will was witnessed by a legal assistant in that office, Mary Davis and by George Maloney. Mary Davis, who drafted the will, did a detailed attendance of what transpired on the day and she testified at the hearing. In that will, the Deceased appointed Mr. Maloney and Ms. Davis as executors. He made a specific devise of "my dwelling house, contents therein together with my farm of land and all cattle, stock and farm machinery" to the plaintiff, whom he described as his first cousin. He devised the residue of his estate to his two sisters, one of whom lived in England and one of whom lived in Wales, in equal...