A High Court judge has found that an elderly widow was defrauded out of her family home by one of her daughters.
Marie Gibson had sued parties including her daughter Pauline Gibson, as well as a solicitor who had allegedly advised the parties regarding a loan agreement relating to the property, and a fund appointed receiver over what Mr Justice Brian Cregan found was the fraudulent transfer of Marie's home at Castletymon Green, Coolock, Dublin 5 that occurred in 2003 but was not discovered until 2017.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Cregan found that the solicitor Kevin O'Gorman had been negligent in the performance of his duties towards Marie Gibson in 2003 and throughout the transaction.
The judge made the finding as he set aside a transfer made between Marie and her late husband John Gibson and their daughter Pauline Gibson in 2003.
He held that no valid transfer of the house had occurred between the Gibsons and Pauline.
Even if there had been one, the judge said that he would have no hesitation in setting it aside on the grounds of fraud and undue influence committed by Pauline Gibson.
The judge described the case as being "a lamentable tale".
The judge said that shortly after the death of her husband in 2017 Marie Gibson, who is an elderly widow in her 80s, discovered that in 2003 her daughter Pauline had defrauded her parents out of their family home and had purportedly arranged for the transfer of that property to herself.
While the house was worth €250,000 in 2003, Marie Gibson and her husband did not get a cent from the purported transfer of their home, the judge said.
The judge said that in 2003 their daughter had borrowed €190,000 from First Active by way of mortgage on the property.
The judge if this fraud was not enough, Kevin O'Gorman had acted as solicitor for both parties to the transaction.
"Mr O'Gorman conducted the transaction in a grossly negligent fashion and failed to advise Marie Gibson and her late husband either properly or at all in relation to the transaction," the judge said, adding that Mr O'Gorman was not accused of fraud.
The judge said that Marie and her husband "were never made aware that they were purportedly transferring their home in its entirety to their daughter for no consideration".
The judge added that while the purported transfer in 2003 was never stamped or registered by Mr O'Gorman, he sought to re-execute the transfer in 2009/10.
The judge said that Pauline Gibson forged their signatures on these documents, resulting in the property being registered in Pauline's name.
The fraud the judge said only came to light when Mr Gibson died in 2017.
Shortly afterwards, Marie Gibson learned that her daughter had defaulted on the 2003 bank loan, which had been acquired from EBS by Promontoria Oyster DAC.
It appointed a receiver over the property, which the Gibsons acquired from Dublin City Council in 1977.
The judge said, as a result Marie then went to her current solicitors Gaffney Halligan, who instructed Hugh O'Flaherty Bl in the proceedings.
"It was just as well that she did" the judge said, as her legal team have pursued this case with great tenacity, thoroughness and professionalism since that time.
Mr Justice Cregan was ruling in proceedings brought by Marie Gibson, against Mr O'Gorman Practising under the title Kevin O'Gorman & Company Solicitors, her daughter Pauline Gibson, and receiver Paul McCleary.
She sued Mr O'Gorman for professional negligence.
Mr O'Gorman had claimed that in 2003 he had advised the plaintiff and her husband "to consider carefully what they were doing" and had believed that they had got independent financial advice from another party.
He said he spelled out what would happen if Pauline did not repay the loan and said that they were happy to proceed.
Pauline Gibson, who was sued by her mother for fraud, deceit and unjust enrichment did not take part in the proceedings.
The receiver, who had taken a neutral role to the action, was before the court in respect of Marie Gibson's application for orders rescinding the sale of the property, and that he be prevented from taking possession of a property Mrs Gibson has resided at since the late 1960s.
In his decision the judge said that the house was Marie Gibson's only asset, and she intended to leave it in equal parts to her five children in her will.
The judge noted that Mrs Gibson has made a new will disinheriting Pauline.
The court said that the fraud came to light shortly after Mr Gibson's death when his affairs were being managed by family members.
The judge said that attempts by the family were made to contact Pauline, without any success.
Marie told the court that since her husband's funeral she had not spoken to nor met with Pauline.
The family do not have her telephone number or know where she currently lives nor her own financial or marital status.
Mr Gibson had claimed that in 2003 Pauline asked for a loan to help carry out renovations on Pauline's then family home at Fortfield Road in Terenure.
She was not aware of the amount of money her daughter, who she trusted, was proposing to borrow, or fully aware what was meant when her daughter wanted to borrow money against her parents' house.
The judge said that in 2003, clearly Marie Gibson and her husband required proper legal advice regarding the transaction.
While they had signed forms in a pub at her daughter's bequest the judge said that what had happened had unbeknown to the plaintiff, fully transferred the property to their daughter.
The judge accepted that Marie Gibson and her husband had not been properly or independently advised in relation to the 2003 loan obtained by Pauline.
The judge said that he did not accept Mr O'Gorman's evidence, adding that he did not find the solicitor to be "credible or reliable witness".
Where there was a conflict of evidence between Marie Gibson and Mr O'Gorman, the judge said that he was of the view that "she was a frank, straight forward and honest witness", and that the court accepted her evidence on relevant matters.
After handing down his judgment, Mr Justice Cregan adjourned the matter to a date in January.
The judge said that several issues in the case remain outstanding including the quantification of damages that the plaintiff is entitled to.
