A High Court judge has refused to interfere with orders in a divorce case requiring the ex-husband to vacate land next to the family home so it can be sold without him threatening or intimidating potential purchasers.
It is “abundantly clear” the man set his face against complying with the court’s earlier orders and commenced a campaign aimed at preventing the €298,000 sale of the family home, Mr Justice John Jordan said in his ruling published on Friday.
The Circuit Court had granted the former couple a decree of divorce in mid-2020. Several connected orders were made, including one for the sale of the home if the man failed to buy out the ex-wife’s equity within nine months.
The proceeds were to be distributed equally between the former partners and the man was also to pay a €25,000 lump sum for past and future maintenance. This was not paid, the judge said.
Numerous issues with the family home were identified, such as the oil burner being located in a garage that straddles another site, which is owned by the man. A well providing the water supply and an electricity source are also on the other site.
Further, planning permission was not obtained for an attic conversion and the septic tank contravened planning laws.
The judge said the man was in a position to leverage the problems but he sought to frustrate the sale “by whatever means were available to him”. Consequently, the ex-wife brought a court motion in mid-July 2021 for orders to compel him to vacate the family home to enable it to be sold.
She alleged her ex-husband refused to engage in discussions about how to resolve the issues. He planned to take up residence in the garage next to the home site and insisted any purchaser would have to organise their own water and electricity supply to the house, she claimed.
The case came back before the Circuit Court in October 2021 when the man was directed to turn on the water supply and to co-operate to restore electricity to the property. The judge said this order was not complied with and the man refused to agree to the sale of the property for €298,000 in January 2022.
A court-appointed auctioneer said in a sworn statement that the man’s behaviour in intimidating potential purchasers of the family home made it impossible to sell it in a safe environment. An email from a prospective buyer confirmed she withdrew her offer due to major concerns with the man living next door, who had displayed intimidating and aggressive behaviour, the judge added.
The Circuit Court ordered the ex-husband to vacate the next-door site, so it too can be sold, with a decision on how the proceeds should be distributed made at a later date. It also made an order prohibiting him from threatening or interfering with the auctioneer or any potential purchasers.
He appealed these orders to the High Court, claiming the lower court erred in numerous ways and interfered with his constitutionally protected property rights.
Dismissing the appeal, the judge said the man has “behaved as a person who believes that he is untouchable, unstoppable and immune” notwithstanding “flagrant breaches” of Circuit Court orders. His recent offer to move to resolve the difficulties to allow the sale is “too little too late and cannot be relied upon given his past behaviour”.
The judge said the mental and physical health issues the man averred to are “not an excuse for the campaign of obstruction and intimidation which he has waged with the objective of preventing the court orders being effective”.
The family home is subject to a mortgage whose ongoing non-payment is creating a “real danger of repossession”, the judge added.
In circumstances where the man had not paid the lump sum ordered and owned the next-door site, the Circuit Court was “perfectly entitled” to order the sale of that land, the judge held. The orders were necessary to give effect to the previous decisions made in granting the decree of divorce and making proper provision, as required by legislation and the Constitution, he added.
The man “has only himself to blame for the predicament he has created for himself”, said the judge, adding that there is “no good reason” for allowing the appeal.
