R F. v M. F

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Henchy J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1995
• Neutral Citation: 1985 WJSC-SC 2121
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1995

1985 WJSC-SC 2121

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Henchy J.

Hederman J.

No. 75089/1979

F (R) v. F {M}

R. F.

and

M. F.

Synopsis:

EQUITY

Conveyance

Execution - Undue influence - Valuable consideration - Independent advice - Wife's conveyance of property to husband - Undue influence by husband not established - Decision of D'Arcy J. (1/12/82) affirmed - (49/83 - Supreme Court - 24/10/85).

|F. v. F.|

HUSBAND AND WIFE

Property

Division - Wife's application for declaration of interest - Farm conveyed by wife to husband - Conveyance for valuable consideration after independent advice without undue influence - Farm sole property of husband - Conveyance of house to husband and wife jointly - Condition that wife reside in house with husband - Condition not satisfied - Rebuttal of presumption of advancement in favour of wife - House sole property of husband - Decision of D'Arcy J. (1/12/82) affirmed - (49/83 - Supreme Court - 24/10/85).- [1995] 2 ILRM 572

|F. v. F.|

REAL PROPERTY

Conveyance

Validity - Husband and wife - Advancement - Undue influence - Wife's conveyance of property to husband - Valuable consideration - Independent advice - Undue influence by husband not established - House conveyed to husband and wife jointly - Condition that wife reside in house with husband - Condition not satisfied - Rebuttal of presumption of advancement in favour of wife - Decision of D'Arcy J. (1/12/82) affirmed - (49/83 - Supreme Court - 24/10/85).- [1995] 2 ILRM 572

|F. v. F.|

1 Judgment of Henchy J. delivered the 24 October 1985 [NEM DISS]

2 The husband and wife in this case were married in 1956. He was an agricultural instructor and she was a clerk. It did not turn out to be a happy marriage. Over the years it passed through a series of vicissitudes which I need not recount. It is sufficient to say that the marriage, of which there is no issue, is now irretrievably broken down for some years.

3 The present proceedings were commenced by the wife in the High Court in 1980, following on the breakdown of the marriage, and in them she sought a series of reliefs against the husband. When the proceedings came on for hearing before D'Arcy J. in December 1982 he made an order dealing with the several issues raised in the pleadings. I need not go into the various matters that were in dispute, for this appeal, which has been taken by the wife against the order of D'Arcy J., is limited to two matters,namely, the findings made by the judge as to the ownership of a farm in north Co. Dublin, and of a house in Malahide, Co. Dublin.

4 When the parties married in 1956 they first lived in Santry, Co. Dublin. In 1961 they decided to purchase the farm in north Co. Dublin. It was a farm of some 35 acres and the purchase price was £4,200. Between money given by an aunt and money lent to her by a bank, the wife put up £4,100 of the purchase money. The husband's contribution was £100. With the aid of an advance from the bank - as a security for which the title deeds of the farm were lodged - they stocked the lands with cows and began dairy farming. The farm had been acquired in the wife's name.

5 Meanwhile, relations between the parties were steadily deteriorating. They intended to leave Santry and go to live on the farm, but the wife refused to do so. She has complained of physical ill-treatment by him, due, according to the judge, to persistent nagging by her. Her nervous health deteriorated and she had to get psychiatric treatment. Because it was he who was effectually running the farm he felt that she should assign it to him. In April 1963 he had transferred the house in Santry to her. The running of the farm was financed out of a joint bank-account. When she froze that account, he pressed her to assign the farm to him. Eventually she did so, by a deed executed in May 1965.

6 D'Arcy J. held that this deed was a valid transfer. The wife contests that finding and asks this Court to hold that the deed should be set aside on the ground that she executed it under undue influence by the husband. In my opinion, that contention is unsound.

7 In the first place, the deed was not a voluntary one. While the transfer is expressed in the deed to be in consideration of natural love and affection, the reality was, as the judge held, that she was to be repaid everything she had expended on the purchase of the land, and he was to take over her liability to the bank for the amount the bank had advanced in respect of the purchase and stocking of the land. It was, therefore, an assignment for valuable consideration. But even if it could be said that the consideration was inadequate or illusory, she had been independently advised as to her rights by two separate firms of solicitors. In the circumstances, there is no equitable principle on which she could claim that the transaction could be set aside. It was not an improvident transaction. As well as that, the fact that she allowed eight years to pass before making any complaint that her execution of the transfer was oppressive or unfair was, as the judge held, so tainted with delay as to be inconsistent with...