A 74-year-old widow has secured a court order which will allow her hang out her clothes at her home.
She is also to get a key to a locked gate at the house, where she lived with her husband since 1959, which would enable an ambulance to get to her should she not be able to walk.
Mother of 12, Bridie O’Grady, of Park Road, Killarney took an action against her son Dan O’Grady, of Deerpark Crescent who operates a garage repair welding facility at the rear of the property.
The house and garage workshop had been conveyed to Dan in 1992 by her husband, Jack O’Grady three years before he died, Killarney Circuit Civil Court was told.
Mrs O’Grady told the court she had no problem with her son Dan getting the house after she died in accordance with the deed.
However she should be allowed live out her life unhindered in her home as agreed, in the transfer by her husband in 1992 , Mrs O’Grady said.
She said she always expected Dan would act as a dutiful and considerate son and he was to look after her.
For a while things were fine, she said. However, she claimed she was now suffering constant harassment; a gate which would be necessary for access by an ambulance was constantly locked and way to her turf shed was blocked because the place was so strewn with machinery and vehicle parts.
She said she no longer had a clothes line – this had been taken down and not replaced. She also said her grandchildren had no place to play around the house.
People had to climb over the wall to get to her because the other gates were awkward to use, she claimed.
On one occasion she became frightened Dan might strike her, the court heard.
“Then he gave up the drink and was impossible to manage,” Mrs O’Grady claimed. “He became impossible to deal with or talk to,” she said.
She said she wanted the disputed gate to remain open.
In evidence, Dan O’Grady conceded his behaviour towards his mother in locking the gate was unreasonable but said “they” had driven him to it.
He denied ever kicking the back door to get into the house to turn on the electricity trip switch.
He also denied ever attempting to strike her – he had simply caught her wrist to ask her to leave his garage because she had been shouting and roaring at him and accusing him of all sorts of things, he said.
There had been "a hardening of attitudes", he said and the back door locks were changed so he had no access to an ESB trip switch when he needed it during welding and car keys were not left so he could move the cars blocking his trucks.
“I have no problem with my mother living there. She has always been there. The issue is the gate. If my sister (Bridget) parks there, trucks can’t come in or go out,” he told his barrister Richard Liston.
Judge John Hannon said he did not like having to impose "draconian" orders in family disputes but as they turned down an opportunity to settle the matter, he was forced to make a series of orders.
Mrs O’Grady was entitled to use her house and a reasonable amount of curtilage exclusively, he said. But Dan O’Grady too was entitled to run his business and to lock his gate and not have his trucks blocked. The dispute was unfortunate but there had been “no gross incidents or behaviour” towards one another and Judge Hannon said and he had seen far worse.
The judge ordered “a one metre strip” around the house be cleared within six weeks by Mr O’Grady so for his mother can hang out her clothes and sit out. He said Mr O’Grady is not to enter this area. Cars blocking her way to her turf shed are also to be removed.
The judge said Mrs O’Grady or her visitors or family are not to park cars blocking trucks and vehicles.
It was a commercial property and the gate could be locked but a key given to Mrs O’Grady who could unlock it if she needed, the judge also ordered.
He made no orders as to costs.
“It wouldn’t be appropriate,” Judge Hannon said.
Judge Hannon also said he would hope that things would settle and said “you are welcome at any time to come into my court and ask me to vacate these orders and it will be as if nothing happened.”
He also said Bridie O’Grady had been “charitable” in not seeking to have the 1992 deed transferring the property to her son null and void. She would have had a beneficial interest in the house even if her late husband was the legal owner, the judge said.
“Other people would not have been so charitable,” the judge said.