Corrigan v Corrigan & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The deceased died on 5 March 2000, leaving a will dated 23 September 1997. The will appointed the Plaintiff and two Defendants as executors. The Plaintiff brought proceedings seeking construction of a clause in the will. Probate was granted to the Plaintiff and second Defendant in January 2002. The first Defendant renounced as executor prior to probate, and the second Defendant renounced in January 2006. The first Defendant is a beneficiary under the will, and the second Defendant is entitled to the residuary estate. The dispute concerns the construction of clause 1 of the will, which relates to 21 acres of land in County Westmeath, described as potentially zoned for residential and/or industrial development. The Plaintiff, as personal representative, seeks the court's guidance in administering the estate due to ambiguities in this clause, particularly in light of the fact that the land was originally zoned for agricultural use but was partially rezoned in 2005 for business and enterprise development.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statement in clause 1 of the will regarding zoning constitutes a condition attaching to the bequest, and if so, whether it is a condition precedent or condition subsequent.
2. The effect of the testator's factual mistake regarding the zoning of the land on the validity and construction of the bequest.
3. Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to assist in the construction of the will under section 90 of the Succession Act, 1965.
4. The nature of the estate created by the bequest to the first Defendant, specifically whether it is a determinable fee simple and the legal consequences thereof.
5. The proper distribution of the land or proceeds thereof among the beneficiaries in light of the above issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The clause should be construed with reference to extrinsic evidence, including the solicitor's notes, which suggest the testator intended sale rather than compulsory acquisition.
• The use of the words "until there is acquisition" indicates a condition subsequent, but the Plaintiff adopts a neutral position on this point.
• The testator acted under a factual mistake regarding zoning, which affects the bequest’s operation.

First Defendant's Arguments

• The clause contains a condition subsequent, allowing the first Defendant to hold and enjoy the profits until acquisition for development purposes.
• The testator intended that the first Defendant retain the land not acquired and that proceeds from acquired land be shared equally among all children.
• The estate created may be a conditional or determinable freehold.

Second Defendant's Arguments

• The clause contains a condition precedent, meaning the bequest only takes effect upon acquisition of the lands for residential and/or industrial development.
• If the condition is void or uncertain, the bequest fails and the property falls into the residuary estate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying ambiguity in clause 1 of the will concerning the zoning status of the land and the conditions attached to the bequest. It noted the testator acted under a factual mistake regarding the land’s zoning, believing it was residential and/or industrial when it was not. The court applied section 90 of the Succession Act, allowing extrinsic evidence, such as the solicitor’s notes, to clarify the testator’s intention.

The court considered whether the statement about zoning was a condition precedent or subsequent, concluding that if it were a condition, it must be a condition subsequent based on legal presumptions and case law. However, the court found the condition to be void for uncertainty, and thus the first Defendant would take the bequest free of the condition.

Moreover, the court analyzed the nature of the estate created, determining it was a determinable fee simple. At common law, a testator cannot create a determinable fee simple with a gift over to third parties upon the occurrence of a condition. Since the bequest attempted such a gift over, the entire limitation and bequest failed.

Because the bequest was made under a mistake of fact and could not be rectified, the court held the property subject to clause 1 falls into the residuary estate. The court answered specific questions posed in the special summons accordingly, confirming the absence of a valid condition and the failure of the bequest.

Holding and Implications

The court held that clause 1 of the will does not contain a valid condition and that the bequest to the first Defendant is a determinable fee simple which fails due to uncertainty and the testator’s mistaken belief about zoning. Consequently, the entire limitation and bequest in clause 1 fails and the land forms part of the residuary estate.

The direct effect is that the first Defendant does not hold the land subject to the conditions stated in the will and the property will be distributed as part of the residuary estate. No new precedent was established; the decision applies existing principles of will construction, conditions on bequests, and the effect of factual mistakes in testamentary dispositions.