Supreme Court Further Provision Made From Two Estates

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30094, 30 March 1963, Page 14

Supreme Court Further Provision Made From Two Estates

Tn a claim brought under the Family Protection Act. Mary Patricia Maloney, a widow, was awarded an annuity of £ 1040 from the estate Of her husband, William James Maloney, a retired hotel pioprietor. by Mr Justice Haslam in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mrs Maloney, for whom Mr 3. H. Godfrey appeared, had sought the whole of the net income of her husband’s

estate—comprising one main asset, the Royal George Hotel, valued at £50.000. as from the date of his death. February 2. 1960, plus the absolute ownership of chattels

Under her husband’s will, she had been left a life interest in a house, provided she paid all outgoings, and the residue of his estate was left in equal shares to three of his four children. Maloney’s children. Margaret Therese Maloney (Mr M. G L. Loughnan). Hazel Ann Keeley (Mr K J McMenamin) and Sharon Mary Maloney and Mark William Maloney (Mr Loughnan». both minors, and his trustee. Ralph Patrick Thompson (Mr J F. Burn) were named as defendants.

Apart from the interest in the house. Mrs Maloney’s only income was a social security widow's benefit of £4 14s 6d a week, plus a little interest from a National Savings account, said Mr Godfrey. The merit and justice of her claim required that she get all the net income from the estate, both as recompense for treatment meted out to her during her husband’s lifetime, and by virtue of her having materially helped to build up the asset of the hotel by her own hard work.

In seeking the whole of the net income from the estate, backdated to the husband’s death, Mr Godfrey said that the Royal George Hotel, the substantial asset, had an uncertain future. Although it had a Government valuation of £50,000, £38,000 of this was comprised of goodwill—which could be mater-

ially affected in the future—and’ the hotel was subject to a first mortgage of £11,500 to New Zealand Breweries. Ltd. (itself due for renewal at an increased rate of interest of 6i per cent.), and a second mortgage of £lB,OOO to C. H. Pateman. The hotel was 90 years old, said Mr Godfrey. It was simply a beer house, which, under the Sale of Liquor Act. effective from June 1, would have to acquire a tavern Licence, with resultant heavy tavern fees—3 per cent, of all Liquor supplied, which on the hotel’s present turnover would be £35 a week. This, he said, could materially affect the rental the hotel could command —a new lease being due in 1965—and the goodwill. After an adjournment, it was announced that the defendant parties would not oppose Mrs Maloney’s claim, and his Honour then ruled as stated, by consent. His Honour also granted Mrs Keeley, a married daughter of the plaintiff, leave to apply for provision from the estate at a later date. Mrs Keeley, said her counsel (Mr McMenamin» had been totally disinherited by her father, and should share equally with her brother and isters. A wise and just father would have provided for this. Three Awards A woman who claimed that she had been cut out of her father’s estate of £5317 by pure caprice was awarded £6OO, and two of her sisters were awarded increased legacies of £BOO and £4OO. in a second action heard by his Honour under the Family Protection Act.

The woman was Sylvia Joyce Wood, married, of Belfast, for whom Mr S. R. Dacre appeared, and her sisters, Doris Davis and Violet May Harris, both married, for whom Mr J. G. Leggat appeared. Their father, David Thomas Boyd, a farmer, of Belfast, who died in 1960, had left an estate of £5317 after payment of death duties. Five of his six daughters were left £lOO each, and the residue of the estate divided equally between his two sons. David William Boyd, a farmer, of Belfast, and Ronald James Boyd, a tractor driver, of Springston, each receiving £2358 The Boyd brothers, named as defendants, were represented in their capacity as beneficiaries by Mr P. H. T. Alpers, and as executors by Mr G. T. Mahon.

After the claims of the three plaintiff sisters had been outlined, during which Mr Dacre said that Mrs Wood had been cut out of the will by pure caprice on her father’s part, and Mr Leggat said that Mrs Davis had been deserted by her husband, Mr Alpers made submissions on the Boyd brothers’ behalf. The estate, said Mr Alpers, had derived from a dairy farm of 33 acres at Belfast—and the will was redolent of a farmer’s attitude that the estate should pass to his sons, and that the husbands of his daughers should maintain them, after bestowal of a token legacy—“by no means an unheard-of or reprehensible attitude,” Mr Alpers said.

Although the estate arose to a large degree from an increase in land values, it was created and preserved by the two sons “turning to” on the farm over the years, for four years without wages, and for several more years with only

very meagre rewards, Mr Alpers said. “This is a case where the testator’s right to do as he wishes with his own should not be disturbed to any great degree,” he said. The two sons had jointly offered their six sisters £2OO in lieu of the £lOO given five of them under the will, and would honour that offer, notwithstanding that three sisters had rejected it in approaching the Court, and whatever the outcome of the present case. In giving his decision, his Honour complimented the parties on their “moderate and temperate approach” to the matters, and the defendants in particular for their offer to their sisters—which offer he would incorporate in his decision, his-Honour said. His Honour then awarded Mrs Wood £6OO from the estate, saying that she was certainly entitled to relief, Mrs Davis £Boo—she having two dependent children and living apart from her husband, to whom she could not look for financial support—and Mrs Harris, £4OO. The burden of the alterations, said his Honour, would have to fall on David William Boyd, who of the two brothers had much the better financial position, following the purchase of his father’s farm in 1956, on the dissolution of partnership with his brother, and the subsequent acquisition of further land.