Jim
That is painful reading indeed. I didn't read it all, but this is my summary:
He made a homemade will. His sisters challenged it but their challenge was dismissed. But the rest of the fighting seems to be various attempts to remove the executors for failure to do their job properly.
If they had gone to a solicitor, there was less likelihood that the will would be challenged, but a lot of the other stuff would have happened.
2. The deceased made a homemade will on a printed will form on 18th May, 2012 by which he appointed Josie Ahern and John Chawke his executors. He devised certain lands at Loughill and ten dry stock to his nephew Ivan O’Donnell; his lands and dwelling at Ballylea, his single farm payments and all livestock and machinery to his nephew Neville O’Donnell; and certain lands at Lower Ballylea “and any prize bonds and Kerry Co-Op shares in [his] name at the time of [his] death” to his nephew Michael O’Donnell. He made a number of charitable bequests and gave small pecuniary legacies to his three surviving sisters, his brother, and the children of his predeceased sister, and left the residue of his estate to Neville.
3. On 23rd June, 2014 the deceased’s three sisters entered a caveat and on 7th November, 2014 the executors issued a testamentary civil bill in which the caveators were named as defendants to prove the will in solemn form of law. That action was heard before His Honour Judge O’Callaghan who, for the reasons given in a written judgment on 12th May, 2017, made an order admitting the will to probate in solemn form of law, and dismissing a counterclaim for a declaration that the deceased had died intestate. The judgment of Judge O’Callaghan shows that issues in the probate action were whether the will was a complete fabrication created by the witnesses without the knowledge of the deceased and possibly in collusion with one or more of the nephews; whether the will had been completed on the deceased’s instructions but improperly signed on his behalf; and (more mundanely) whether the document had been validly executed in compliance with the requirements of s. 78 of the Succession Act, 1965.
6. In his judgment of 12th May, 2017 Judge O’Callaghan observed that the deceased would no doubt have been disappointed to see the parties in court. Casey & Company, solicitors, who acted for the executors in the probate action, have submitted a bill for €82,719.32. C. N. Doherty & Company, solicitors, who acted for the defendants in the probate action, have submitted a bill for €104,434.24. In addition, Casey & Company, who it was took out the grant, have sent the executors a fee note for €14,883 for “Professional fee in relation to all work done”, which appears to be for work done in the administration.
10. By notice of motion issued on 26th February, 2019 Mr. Chawke applied to the High Court for an order removing Ms. Ahern. He then deposed that little had been done in respect of the administration of the estate save that Ms. Ahern had “gathered one or two small assets and paid some bills”.
55. It is clear that Ms. Ahern has no real enthusiasm to act as executrix but was hanging on with the sole object of ensuring that Mr. Cadogan would not be engaged to act in the administration. That apart, I am satisfied that Ms. Ahern’s part in the failure to keep proper records; her part in the conduct of the estate’s business in large bundles of cash; her acquiescence in Mr. Chawke’s self-dealing; and the execution by her of the deed of assent and the forms of transfer and indemnity in respect of the Kerry shares was serious misconduct which would have warranted her removal, and which excludes her from consideration for appointment as sole executrix.
