Dolan -v- Reynolds [2011] IEHC 334 (11 February 2011)

Dolan -v- Reynolds [2011] IEHC 334 (11 February 2011)

The defendant did not acquire title by adverse possession as his occupation was not exclusive against the estate or other beneficiaries, and the limitation period had not expired. The plaintiff, as administrator de bonis non, is entitled to possession and to sell the property. The defendant is entitled to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 334
Parties
Plaintiff: Catherine Dolan; Defendant: James Reynolds
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part; Circuit Court order varied and substituted.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Administration of Estates, Registered Land, Statute of Limitations, Proprietary Estoppel, Injunctions, Compensation for Improvements
Succession Law Property Law Equity Adverse Possession Administration of Estates Registered Land Statute of Limitations Proprietary Estoppel +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Dolan

Plaintiff

James Reynolds

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant acquired title to the property by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as administrator of the estate
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to compensation for works carried out

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not acquire title by adverse possession as his occupation was not exclusive against the estate or other beneficiaries, and the limitation period had not expired. The plaintiff, as administrator de bonis non, is entitled to possession and to sell the property. The defendant is entitled to compensation for certain works carried out after the father's death but not for earlier works, which are statute barred. Delay does not bar the plaintiff's claim. An assent is required for vesting registered land, and the Mohan v. Roche exception does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; Circuit Court order varied and substituted.

Orders

  • Declaration that plaintiff is entitled to possession as administrator of Matthew Reynolds's estate.
  • Declaration that defendant has not acquired title by adverse possession.