PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL & LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
The previous article in this area has already dealt with Section 117 Claims under the Succession Act 1965. It is common where a Section 117 Claim is brought against an Estate to find that a further claim for Proprietary Estoppel or Legitimate Expectation is also coupled with the Section 117 Claim. The benefit of these type of Claims are that they are not subject to the six month time limit that exists for Section 117 claims.
A claim for Proprietary Estoppel can be brought where a claimant can prove that they have acted to their detriment on the strength of a belief that they have or would be given a right to the Testators property. The Claimant must also prove, that this belief was encouraged by the Testator. If the foregoing circumstances can be proven the Court can intervene and override the terms of the will to protect that property involved.
Such claims are decided purely on the facts and evidence must be strong. In 1997 there was a case of Smith –V – Halpin in that the Court there found in favour of the Plaintiff who had brought the claim for Proprietary Estoppel against the Estate of his late father. The facts were that the Plaintiff’s father, rather than giving him a site upon which he could build a house, suggested that the Plaintiff would extend the Family Home where the Testator lived, on the basis that the Plaintiff himself would get the house when his parents died. The Plaintiff carried out the extension at his own expense. However, after his father’s death he found that the house had been left to his mother for her life and thereafter to his sister, despite his father’s assurance. The High Court found that the expenditure by the Plaintiff was evidence of his expectation that the house would be his at the death of his mother and accordingly that the court ordered that the house be conveyed to the Plaintiff in recognition of his legitimate expectations.
The Supreme Court also made a decision in this area in the case of McCarren –V- McCarren. The Plaintiff in that case had worked on a family farm for 16 years. The particular case did not involve a Will but an intestacy. However, the Plaintiff argued that there was an expectation that he would receive the farm or interest in it for the time spent working on the farm. Although the Court found that it was more difficulty to quantify the size of the entitlement or expectation, given that there was no financial contribution but rather the farm was worked. However, it did acknowledge that such work can equally ground a valid claim in the Estate. The transfer of the land to the sister was thus prevented on the grounds of Proprietary Estoppel.
The Circuit Court of O’Rourke –V- O’Rourke and Gallagher involved Plaintiffs who were long term foster children on the Testator. The case again involved a claim for legitimate expectation against the estate of their foster parents. The Plaintiffs had both participated in the running of the household and the family farm while at school and thereafter. The claimants had an expectation that the farm would become theirs on the death of their foster parent and in the circumstances the claim was upheld.
The above articles are not an exhaustive discussion in this area and must be used for information purpose only. Legal advice must be obtained on any such claim against an Estate.
Deirdre Wilson
