A case involving the estate of a Donegal farmer whose will ‘disappeared’ has been settled in the High Court after a protracted legal battle.
The court ruled the estate should be dispersed according to a reconstructed copy of the ‘lost will’, rather than an assumption the farmer intended to destroy it. This meant that one sister inherited the entire estate, rather than it being divided between 14 family members, as would have been the case had the court ruled there effectively was no will.
According to a report by Ciaran Moran in this week’s Farming Independent, the dispute involved the estate of Patrick Quinn, of Carn, Ballybofey, who died on November 24, 2015. His estate includes around 30 acres of farmland, valued at €256,000 in 2017, along with Credit Union savings and personal effects.
The case arose when his sister, Lila, applied to admit a reconstructed copy of the will to probate. Mr Quinn had written the will in 1992, naming Lila as the sole beneficiary and executor. The will was witnessed by solicitor John Foy and his legal secretary.
Records from Mr Foy’s will register supported the validity of the will, noting the deceased’s attendance to give instructions and execute the document.
However, after Mr Quinn’s death, the original will could not be located. In 2018, Anthony Quinn, one of Patrick’s surviving siblings, extracted a grant of administration, treating the estate as if Patrick had died intestate.
In 2022, Anthony and his daughter Colette were appointed joint administrators after she provided substantial assistance in managing the estate.
Anthony and Colette, as notice parties in the case, argued that the original will had been “lifted” by Patrick, a Donegal term meaning the testator retrieved the document from the solicitor’s office. They claimed Patrick destroyed the will, intending to revoke it and die intestate.
However, Lila contended, the will was not revoked but rather misplaced after Mr Foy retired and transferred his firm’s files to P Mcrory & Co.
During the proceedings, the court heard evidence from various parties, including Michael Quinn, a nephew of Patrick. Michael testified that Patrick confirmed having a will around two years before his death but did not disclose its contents.
The court also considered the close relationship between Patrick and Lila, who lived nearby and shared daily interactions.
Judge Stack examined whether Patrick retrieved his will, which would invoke a presumption of revocation. However, the evidence indicated that Patrick did not collect the will from either solicitor’s office.
Additionally, the court found no explanation as to why Patrick, known to have long-standing intentions to benefit Lila, would revoke his will and allow his modest estate to be distributed among 14 heirs under intestacy laws.
The court rejected the argument that the absence of a copy of the will implied its revocation. It determined that the original will was likely misplaced in the solicitor’s office.
As a result, the court ordered the revocation of the grant of administration to Anthony Quinn and Colette and directed the reconstructed copy of Patrick’s will be admitted to probate, naming Lila as the sole beneficiary and executor.