The High Court has refused a man’s request to appoint an independent person, rather than his sisters, to act as a legal representative of their father’s estate.
Ms Justice Siobhán Stack was satisfied that John Casey did not show evidence demonstrating any impropriety on the part of his sisters, Yvonne and Michelle Casey, as executrices of their father’s estate.
The judge said Mr Casey made “very serious” allegations against his sisters that he “failed to substantiate”. The sisters “comprehensively” denied all of the claims.
It is “imperative” that Yvonne and Michelle are now permitted to get on with gathering in the assets of their father’s estate to administer it “without further interference”, the judge added.
A Californian woman in Dublin: ‘Ireland’s not perfect, but I do think as a whole it is moving in the right direction’
Will Andy Farrell’s Lions sabbatical hurt Ireland’s Six Nations chances?
How does VAT in Ireland compare with countries across Europe? A guide to a contentious tax
Prof Donal O’ Shea: ‘The positioning of Ronald McDonald House at the entrance to the new children’s hospital makes me angry’
The siblings’ father, Bernard Casey, late of Threadneedle Road, Salthill, Co Galway, died in November 2020, having been predeceased by his wife by two months.
In his will, made in 2015, he appointed Yvonne and Michelle as executrices, said the judge, who outlined the background of the case in her judgment published on Friday.
He left his family home in Salthill to Yvonne and Michelle as tenants in common, with the former enjoying a three-quarters share. He also left Michelle with a holiday apartment in Clifden, Co Galway. A commercial property at Quay Street, Galway, was bequeathed to Mr Casey.
He estimated the properties had values of €1.4 million, €1.2 million and €400,000 respectively. The judge said the values perhaps show an attempt by their late father to divide various properties equally between his children.
However, if that was his intention, it may not have been achieved, as more than €700,000 was still owed, as of May 2020, on the loan for the commercial property, the judge said. This was secured by way of charges over the commercial property and the holiday apartment.
Ms Justice Stack said the grant of probate has not been extracted by the executrices as Mr Casey lodged a caveat with the probate office in late 2021.
He had strongly objected to the court granting his sisters enduring powers of attorney for their parents in 2018. He alleged his sisters misappropriated property sale funds but later withdrew his objection.
His withdrawal was “telling”, said Ms Justice Stack, as, “despite having felt free to make the most serious of allegations against his sisters with the benefit of the absolute privilege which attaches to court proceedings, he was unable to substantiate them in any way”.
The judge was satisfied Mr Casey had “no basis” for alleging misappropriation of funds at any point.
Ms Justice Stack said there is a high threshold for passing over a nominated executor, with an applicant required to show “special circumstances” that are sufficiently serious to justify departing from the testator’s wishes.
She was satisfied the sisters did not unduly delay in lodging an application to extract a grant of probate, as alleged by Mr Casey.
She also rejected all of his claims relating to an alleged failure to protect the estate’s assets and an alleged misappropriation of funds. She set out how significant portions of the payments he disputed were appropriately spent on their parents’ nursing care, while he also took issue with money spent in supermarkets where individual receipts were not available.
It is “very sad to see” that he seems to have a history of making unfounded allegations against Yvonne and Michelle, said Ms Justice Stack. His approach, she said, is to make the claims and then place the onus on them to disprove them.
The judge said there were no special circumstances to justify overriding the deceased’s wishes as to who his personal representatives should be. She refused Mr Casey’s application.
