Relatives of a bachelor farmer are in dispute over whether he left the entire 70 acres of his farm to a nephew or just part of it, the High Court has heard.
William Doyle, of Bealalaw, Myshall, Co Carlow, died without children, aged 77, on November 12th, 2019.
He left an estate worth €940,000, largely comprising farmland worth €465,000, and several bank accounts totalling €340,000.
Mr Doyle made a will in July 2019. His nephew, Peter Murphy, was named as a beneficiary while his niece, Monica Butler, otherwise Murphy, was named as an executor. The deceased’s sister and his remaining nephews and nieces are nine residuary legatees under the will.
Peter was initially named as an executor but renounced his entitlement to extract a grant of representation when a dispute over the meaning of the will became apparent.
Peter brought High Court proceedings against Monica and against residuary legatees, Sean Roberts, PJ Roberts, Martin Roberts, Gretta Roberts and Maurice Roberts, claiming there was no ambiguity in the will and the entire farm was left to him.
Central to the dispute is the fact that the deceased's property comprised four non-contiguous parcels of land.
The first is around 20 acres at the farmhouse where William lived in Bealalaw, while a short distance north of those are another two parcels totalling around 35 acres, which are not contiguous, at Myshall.
A short distance north of the farmhouse lands, at Raheenleigh, is another 15.7 acres.
The part of the will in dispute relates to a clause bequeathing to Peter "my dwelling house, farm buildings and lands at Belalaw [sic], Myshall, in the County of Carlow, together with any Entitlements attaching to the said lands", along with machinery and livestock.
Peter claims this means the entire farm was left to him. He said his uncle wanted the farm to "stay in his blood". He says that throughout his uncle's lifetime he referred to his farm and all of his lands as “Bealalaw” and did not refer to the different townlands.
He says that without the full land-holding, the farm would not be viable and would have to be sold.
He also pleads that his uncle promised him the farm and that he therefore worked the lands for a lengthy period of time in the expectation that he would inherit it when he died.
The Roberts defendants agree there is no ambiguity on the face of the will but say it means William intended to leave only the Beallalaw lands to Peter.
Alternatively, they say that this part of the will is void for uncertainty and falls to be included in the residuary estate.
They also dispute Peter's claim about working the land as he lived 30 miles away in Carlow and only assisted occasionally on the farm.
It is also claimed Peter had shown a clear intention not to pursue a farming life and, as a result, William had altered an earlier will which bequeathed the entire lands to Peter in anticipation that he would show a commitment to the farm.
Ms Justice Emily Egan was asked by the executor in October 2022 to decide whether extrinsic evidence would be admissible in the construction of the will under Section 90 of the Succession Act 1965.
This provides that extrinsic evidence shall be admissible to show the intention of the testator and to assist in the construction of, or to explain, any contradiction in a will.
The judge said that although read on its own, the immediately relevant portion of the will was, in her view, more consistent with an intention to split the lands than to treat them as a unitary whole, this was not unambiguously the case.
"Having regard to the other material parts of the will and to the scheme of the will, this ambiguity persists and indeed is somewhat enhanced," she said.
As a result, she ruled the court will have to hear extrinsic evidence of the deceased's intention in order to deal with the question of whether ambiguity exists.
