Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,270
This is a mad case as reported in yesterday's Irish Times.
:quality(70):focal(1146x645:1156x655)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/LQ3GPT6WCNEZJNRCTU46SBEXYY.jpg)
www.irishtimes.com
The original case is reported here
www.irishlegal.com
In 2003, the daughter defrauded the mother and father by not telling them that they were transferring their home to her.
She borrowed €190k based on it and the lenders tried to repossess the houses.
It was only in 2017, that the mother discovered that she did not own the house any more.
She sued the solicitor for negligence and the solicitor defended the case for three days before conceding it.
Mr O’Gorman, the judge said, had behaved in “a grossly negligent manner” towards Marie Gibson and her late husband. The solicitor was “clearly aware” of all his own actions including that he had failed to furnish any written advice to Marie Gibson, the judge said.
Mr O’Gorman had not witnessed Mrs Gibson’s signatures on documents relating to the purported transfer but had later claimed that he had witnessed the signatures.
Despite all this, the judge said, Mr O’Gorman had sought to defend the case against him “tooth and nail” until the third day of the trial when it became clear that “the solicitor’s actions in this matter were indefensible”, the judge said.
Mr O’Gorman was held to be acting for the plaintiff and her husband in the property transfer and it was “clear beyond doubt” that he was grossly negligent in not providing any advice to them, the court held. On his evidence, Mr O’Gorman paid all the loan monies to Pauline and “not a cent” went to the parents. The court said “this was a transaction of such extreme improvidence that no reasonable solicitor could possibly have advised their client to engage in such a transaction”.
The judge is considering referring the matter to the Law Society and the Revenue Commissioners.
I suspect that they won't need a referral. The solicitor can expect two knocks on his door sometime soon.
Brendan
Daughter and solicitor ordered to pay damages to mother over fraudulent transfer of home
Daughter hit with €75,000 bill and solicitor €30,000 with judge threatening further action against both of them
The original case is reported here
High Court: Solicitor ‘grossly negligent’ in fraudulent property transaction by daughter against her parents
The High Court has held that a solicitor acted in a “grossly negligent fashion” in a fraudulent property transaction perpetrated by a daughter against her parents’ home. Although the home had been valued at €250,000, the daughter procured the transfer of the property to her fo
www.irishlegal.com
In 2003, the daughter defrauded the mother and father by not telling them that they were transferring their home to her.
She borrowed €190k based on it and the lenders tried to repossess the houses.
It was only in 2017, that the mother discovered that she did not own the house any more.
She sued the solicitor for negligence and the solicitor defended the case for three days before conceding it.
Mr O’Gorman, the judge said, had behaved in “a grossly negligent manner” towards Marie Gibson and her late husband. The solicitor was “clearly aware” of all his own actions including that he had failed to furnish any written advice to Marie Gibson, the judge said.
Mr O’Gorman had not witnessed Mrs Gibson’s signatures on documents relating to the purported transfer but had later claimed that he had witnessed the signatures.
Despite all this, the judge said, Mr O’Gorman had sought to defend the case against him “tooth and nail” until the third day of the trial when it became clear that “the solicitor’s actions in this matter were indefensible”, the judge said.
Mr O’Gorman was held to be acting for the plaintiff and her husband in the property transfer and it was “clear beyond doubt” that he was grossly negligent in not providing any advice to them, the court held. On his evidence, Mr O’Gorman paid all the loan monies to Pauline and “not a cent” went to the parents. The court said “this was a transaction of such extreme improvidence that no reasonable solicitor could possibly have advised their client to engage in such a transaction”.
The judge is considering referring the matter to the Law Society and the Revenue Commissioners.
I suspect that they won't need a referral. The solicitor can expect two knocks on his door sometime soon.
Brendan