Laois father and son in dispute over land and house appear in court
Image for illustration purposes only
A DISPUTE between a father and son about the ownership of a house and land was an issue at a family law hearing at Portlaoise District Court last week.
The hearing was held in-camera, which means none of the parties involved can be identified.
The 26-year-old defendant appeared before the court charged with breaching a safety order at the family home on 21 March.
Judge Susan Fay was informed that it is the third such allegation of intimidation that the father has made against his son since last September.
The court was told that gardaí are objecting to bail being granted to the son, as both men are living in the same house, along with the father’s partner.
“The issue is,” said a garda witness, “who has rights to the home and lands.” The court heard that in October 2024, the grandmother passed away and the grandson claimed that the house and lands were willed to him on condition that his father would remain living in the house until he passed away.
Defending solicitor Brian Duffy said that it’s the third such allegation of intimidation the father had brought against his client and that the previous two had been dismissed.
He said: “My client owns the house and land.” The garda witness said a line in the will points out that the father can continue living in the house and “does not directly mention the son.” Garda Sgt JJ Kirby wanted to know was there any possibility both men could agree on anything?
Taking the stand and in his sworn evidence, the father said: “I own the house and farm. The situation is he (son) thinks he owns it now. The will says I own it for my lifetime. On Saturday, I was up in the field spraying and he (son) appeared out of nowhere and said I shouldn’t be there, that it was his land. I was afraid and I’m in fear of my son.”
The basis of all this, said Mr Duffy, “is about the land. Not about being intimidated. You brought two previous breaches of domestic court orders and they were dismissed.” “It’s not his field,” said the 61-year-old. “It’s my field.”
Mr Duffy said: “You are using the court system to get him out of the home and off the farm.” “You can twist it anyway you want,” said the father, “but I am in fear of him.” The father said that he, along with his sister, are the executors of the will.
Mr Duffy said that his client should be released from custody and allowed to live in his house.
Sgt Kirby said: “My concern here, as always, is for the protection of life. We have two men who can’t live under the same roof together. I’m concerned that something might happen.” Studying a photocopy of the will, Mr Duffy said he didn’t know if it was the last will and testament of the deceased because “it is not signed, dated or stamped.”
Judge Fay asked whether either of the men would be prepared to leave the family home until the issue is resolved at the next hearing of the case in a number of days, to which both replied: “No.” “My client has lived with his father since his grandmother died three years ago without any issues. His father is not in any danger from him,” said Mr Duffy.
Taking the stand, the son said: “I’ve lived all my whole life in the house. If I go back to it there will be no problems. I just want to get on in harmony with my father.”
Asked what had transpired between the two of them in the field that day, the son said: “I was home and went out to the field where I saw him with the sprayer. I just asked him what he was doing? He just left. I’d like to be able to sit down and sort this out with him. I’d agree to any conditions. I’d have no interactions with him whatsoever. I have nowhere else to go. I’ve no relations. It’s my home.”
Sgt Kirby noted that the father had also lived all his life in the house and farm.
He put it to the son: “You went out to the field to confront your father,” to which the son replied: “I only asked him a simple question. I was not confrontational.”
Sgt Kirby said: “This man (father) lived all his life in this house and farm. He was minding his own business when you came up to him. He is perfectly entitled to have been in that field.” “I’m the owner of the farm,” the son replied.
Judge Fay asked whether the son could stay in a hotel until the issue comes back before the court, to which Mr Duffy replied: “He is on Jobseekers.”
Judge Fay wanted to know whether the son had entered into a lease agreement with anybody on the lands.
The son replied: “I have spoken to somebody, but there’s nothing agreed yet. It’s naked land, there’s nothing on it yet. When my grandmother was alive, he (father) was renting the land from her. I was speaking to an agricultural advisor and nothing has been agreed. I don’t have a herd number. I’d agreed not to engage in any farming activity if I get bail.”
The court heard that shortly after the death of his grandmother, his father’s partner moved in to live in the house with them.
The son said: “The minute my grandmother died, he moved her in. I asked could I move my partner in and he said no.”
Sgt Kirby said that new evidence had been introduced into the case and that “the issue is not about the land, but instead it’s about his father’s partner.” “If given bail,” said the son, “I’ll go home into my bedroom and close the door behind me.”
Judge Fay went on to grant bail to the son on his own bond of €100 and on conditions that he not carry out any farming activity on the lands, abide by the conditions already attached to the safety order, he provides a letter from a solicitor clarifying and setting out clearly the instructions and the status of his grandmother’s will, that he remains sober and of good habits, he engages with the family mediation services and that he keeps the peace until the next sitting of the court in front of the same judge, who has already heard the breaches of the two previous safety orders.
