A woman has claimed her brothers’ handling of a family company’s property assets means she may not get a €250,000 inheritance left to her by their mother.
Marie Healy wants High Court orders permitting her to bypass her brothers, James and Patrick, as executors of the estate of their late mother, Mary Dooley, who died in February 2020, more than a year before her husband, a well-known Limerick businessman, Dan Dooley, who died in June 2021.
Ms Healy wants the orders so she can bring proceedings, under the Companies Act, on behalf of her mother’s estate aimed at having assets returned to it to be used to fulfil bequests left by her mother.
Her brothers, through their counsel Liosa Beechinor, opposed the application and disputed their sister’s claims concerning their handling of the assets of Dan Dooley Ltd (DDL), in liquidation.
Katie Taylor v Amanda Serrano: TV details, fight time and all you need to know
Paul Howard: I said I’d never love another dog as much as I loved Humphrey. I was wrong
Show Clint Eastwood some respect. His new film Juror #2 is no dud
Reusable cloth nappies vs disposables: would you put €500 a year in the bin?
When the hearing concluded after 4pm on Monday, Ms Justice Siobhán Stack reserved her decision.
Earlier, outlining the application, barrister Declan Whittle, with barrister Arthur Cunningham, for Ms Healy, said Mary Dooley, of Knocklong, Limerick, a mother of four, made a will on November 13th 2017 in which she appointed her husband as executor of her estate. Because Dan Dooley died without having administered his wife’s estate, their sons were substituted as executors of her estate in line with his wife’s will.
Under a 2010 will made by Dan Dooley, he had appointed his wife and an old friend, Des Wallace, as co-executors of his estate. Mr Wallace wrote last week to solicitors for Ms Healy saying he had hoped she would drop her application, which he described as of “no merit”. As she had not, Mr Wallace had said he intends to apply to revoke his right to act as executor of his friend’s estate, which would leave Mr Dooley’s sons as executors.
Ms Healy alleges her brothers are conflicted as executors of their mother’s estate arising from their conduct concerning their mother’s 20 per cent shareholding of DDL.
At the time of her death, Mrs Dooley was beneficial owner of a 20 per cent shareholding in DDL, incorporated in 1975, Mr Whittle said. Patrick and James Dooley were respectively appointed as directors of DDL in January 1983 and May 1995.
Counsel said DDL had property assets at Westland Row in Dublin, valued at €3 million in 2009 and revised downwards to €439,000 in 2011. In 2012, it was put on the market for €2.8 million and, in 2014, there was a contract for sale for €900,000 between DDL and the brothers.
Mr Whittle said, under the Companies Act, that disposal required a resolution of the directors of DDL at a general meeting, but that was not done for another 43 months until 2018 when Mrs Dooley was in a nursing home.
Among the issues a court should scrutinise is whether the 43-month delay complied with the Companies Act and whether Mrs Dooley had capacity to understand and sign the resolution, counsel said. Ms Healy believed she had not, but that was disputed.
Following a May 2021 resolution of the members of DDL for a solvent members voluntary winding up of the company, a liquidator was appointed and the residual value of the 20 per cent shareholding was calculated as some €65,890.
The basis of Ms Healy’s claim is that, if the property at Westland Row is brought back to DDL, 20 per cent of its value belongs to Mrs Dooley’s estate and there would be enough funds to pay the bequests in her will.
Ms Healy needs substantial discovery of documents to deal with several claims by her brothers in opposing her application, including about the value of the Westland Row property, he outlined.
In opposing her application, her brothers contend the process she wishes to pursue is speculative, without merit, will reduce the value of their mother’s estate and was decided against by the liquidator of DDL.
They maintain their actions concerning the company and the estate are “above reproach”, dispute the claim the shares at issue are part of their mother’s estate and say even if they are their mother chose to make her sons executors of the estate.
In submissions, Ms Beechinor said there was no evidence that Mrs Dooley, who had led an active life in the nursing home, lacked capacity. Her death certificate included no reference to dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, Mrs Dooley was actively involved for 45 years in DDL and it was an “extraordinary proposition” her residence in a nursing home should in some way indicate incapacity, counsel said.
