Undue influence on Dementia Parent
From 2014, the deceased woman had been unable to manage her own affairs and one of her sons took charge of her care and decision-making. However, his three siblings became concerned about the manner in which he was looking after their mother. This included the discharge of their mother from hospital against medical advice. Having been made a ward of court, the deceased was transferred to a nursing home.
In 2016, the nursing home became concerned about the defendant and sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with other nursing home residents and to seek supervised visitation. The defendant breached the court orders, and the nursing home successfully sought orders for his attachment and committal in November 2016.
In April 2018, the deceased died leaving an estate of over €6 million to her children and appointing the defendant as her sole executor and trustee of her Will. The defendant was bequeathed the deceased’s home and the entire shareholding of the family company.
In 2020, his siblings applied successfully to have the defendant removed as executor of their mother’s Will. The court gave liberty to the plaintiff solicitor to apply for a grant of administration in their mother’s estate.
Later, there was a dispute about the construction of their mother’s will which resulted in the removal of the defendant as trustee of the Will.
Facts began to emerge about financial dealings by the defendant in his late mother's financial affairs. It was discovered that in 2015, the defendant had opened a joint account for himself and his mother and over 2015 and 2016, the defendant had transferred €192,000 from that joint account to his own account.
The matter came before the court and the plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant had unlawfully set up the joint account when his mother suffered from dementia and that he had used this account to transfer monies to his account for his own use. It was also claimed that their deceased mother had acted under undue influence of the defendant and that his actions were unconscionable.
The High Court judge considered the medical evidence of the deceased and the series of ATM withdrawals from the joint account and these lacked documentation or invoices or receipts to support the withdrawals.
The High Court judge found that the defendant was not a credible witness, noting that he denied that his mother suffered from dementia despite the convincing evidence to the contrary.
The judge considered the jurisprudence of undue influence noting the special relationship of parent and child and that the deceased had placed a significant degree of trust in her defendant, son. Accordingly, and in the circumstances of the facts in the case, the judge ruled that the presumption of undue influence had not been rebutted by the defendant.
The judge ruled that there was no necessity to set up a joint bank account, noting that none of the amount withdrawn had been used for the deceased’s benefit.
Consequently, the court ruled that the declarations sought would be granted and the defendant was ordered to make full repayment of funds to the estate.
McNamara v Horgan (No. 2) [2024] IEHC 426.
Comments