Cottage in Greystones

coL

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, I looked but couldn't find it.

Can anyone give me a bit of background and more facts about the case mentioned in the courts recently relating to the cottage in Greystones?

The paper doesn't give many facts and it seems like an interesting (and complicated) case.

Peregrinus

Link to the newspaper report, please?

Graham

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/long-battle-for-possession-of-greystones-cottage-halted-1.2384291

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/tragic-dispute-over-greystones-cottage-brought-to-a-halt-by-supreme-court-31594375.html

Peregrinus

I don't know much about the case. Family rows that end up in the courts frequently look impenetrable, because many of the issues that motivate people's attitudes and actions are not legal issues at all, and are not brought out in the evidence given in the proceedings. This case, I think, looks even more impenetrable because one of the parties fell into the hands of freemannish advisers.

coL

I have seen one or two references to it on here so I presumed that it was relatively well known. From what I can see it's very long running as well.

Hard to understand the facts from the newspaper but it seems very convoluted.

Does that woman even have any rights if the lease expired and there was no claim for adverse possession?

Robbo

The most recent judgment has a reasonable potted history of the matter, in 15 paragraphs.

coL

I have read both articles but neither really explains the issues or what has transpired and is being argued by the parties. I was posting here in the hope someone might be able to explain these things and provide a bit more insight .

Why for example does this family even believe they have a claim if the lease had expired and not been renewed? The article makes no reference to adverse possession or squatters rights being claimed so the way I see it they shouldn't even be there. Am I wrong in thinking this and if so why? Would be very interested in getting more info on the legal position regarding leases.

Also the woman in question only has a quarter share of the property by my reckoning so how does she feel that this gives her the right to live there more than the others who have shares?

All I can see from the articles and the search I did is some claim under the constitution for the protection of mothers and children. Am interested in getting a bit more info of the story and the facts surrounding it. Would also be interested in getting views on the legal position or at least links to any of this.

Marcusm

I suspect that thugs accrued allowing them to buyout the freehold from the Orpen estate for a statutory sum or l, perhaps, following expiry of the lease they might have put in place the elements to claim adverse possession, presumably following notice to Orpen, the freeholder. It seems that following the father's death 1984, such rights as he possessed were split between his widow and daughters, one if whom occupied the property. As none of them held marketable title, I imagine the daughter in possession frustrated attempts to regularise the position - she was an executrix so had the obligation to do this - as it was contrary to her selfish proposition. A professional, Sherry, seems to have been appointed to administrate the estate and she continued to frustrate his position leading to court orders the breach of which led to jail time.

As with all family disputes, logic never prevailed, they continued to fight rather than to gather up and realise the asset. I'm sure that all participants think they were right/possessed the moral high ground. In reality, they have dissipated assets of significant value.

See also Rocca/Morrison v multiple neighbors.

Peregrinus

Yup. The rights the family has to the property are somewhat uncertain, to put it no higher, but that doesn't stop them fighting like demented cats over the division of those rights between them. That's not uncommon in family rows; as I say, this isn't really about legal issues and it isn't really about money either.

I still remember the sinking feeling I used to get, during my (relatively brief) period doing estate administration work many years ago, when I would open a letter from a beneficiary which began "My brother knows very well which brass table-lamp I am referring to; Great-auntie Bessie promised it to me in 1967". You didn't need to be Sigmund Freud to work out that this row wasn't actually about table-lamps, and that it didn't have a legal solution.