A WOMAN changed her will because she disapproved of her daughter’s relationship with a separated man, it has been claimed in the High Court.
Maura Kelly is seeking orders and declarations aimed at requiring that her brother, who was left the family home in their mother’s will, grant her a right of residence in that home for the rest of her life.
Ms Kelly (56), an unemployed catering assistant, has brought the action against her only sibling, Christopher Kelly (55), in relation to their family home on Ratoath Road, Cabra West, Dublin.
Her claim is based on promises which she alleges were made by her late mother, also Maura Kelly, and, after their mother’s death, by her brother to the effect that she would always be allowed to live in the house.
The court heard Mr Kelly wanted to sell the property in 2007 when it was valued at €520,000, but it was now worth some €200,000.
Ms Kelly wants a declaration that Mr Kelly, a printer and married father of four of Talbot Court, Castleknock, Dublin, holds the property on foot of a resulting/constructive trust and/or on trust for her for the remainder of her life.
She also wants a declaration, by virtue of money spent by her on the house, that she has a legal and beneficial interest in the property.
She is also claiming for her work and care in looking after their mother from 1998 to her death in 2005. Her mother, a Moore Street trader, suffered from ill health during these years and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, Ms Kelly told the court.
Mr Kelly denies her claims and says he never made any promise to let his sister live in the house for the rest of her life.
Ms Kelly claims she lived in the house with the exception of a short period in 1991-92 when she moved out and lived with a separated man. Her mother had told her, that as the man was separated, he could never live in the Kelly family home, but she (the plaintiff) “could always” live there, she said.
Before that relationship, Ms Kelly said she believed her mother had made an earlier will under which she believed she was the sole beneficiary of the family home.
That will, she believed, based on discussions with her mother, was altered by her mother in 1992 as a result of her mother’s disapproval of her relationship.
She believed a clause may have been inserted into the will stating her partner could not live in the house.
Ms Kelly said she also anticipated she would be left a definitive interest in her mother’s estate, including the home.
Shortly after their mother’s death, she said her brother told her, as far as he was concerned, the house was “yours for the rest of your life, you need never worry, I am never going to put you out of the house”.
More than two years later, in September 2007, her brother’s solicitor wrote to her saying he intended to sell the house and asking her to vacate the property.
Had it not been for her brother’s promises, she would have obtained independent legal advice and would have instituted proceedings under the 1965 Succession Act seeking a declaration her mother had failed in her moral duty to make proper provision for her in her will.
Ms Kelly says her brother was well provided for and well positioned in life while she is on social welfare benefit of €185 a week. At the time of her mother’s death, she had €63,215 in her sole name in two accounts, part of which was her one-third share from the estate of her father, who predeceased her mother.
She told the court yesterday she would have nowhere to go if she had to leave the house.
Under cross-examination by Ben Ó Floinn, for Mr Kelly, she said she had asked her brother if she should pay rent for the house after their mother died but he had said he did not want to be a landlord.
When told that Mr Kelly would be denying he gave her any assurances about continuing to live in the house, she said he had given assurances.
She denied she had told him, when she knew he had been left the house, that he would be paying the tax in relation to it.
The case continues before Mr Justice Roderick Murphy.