Divorce on a farm - who keeps the house?
Dear Karen,
I am getting a divorce from my wife, and I am farming. The family home is located on the family farm, and I would be anxious to keep it as it is in such close proximity to the farm. What typically happens in a situation like this?
Dear Reader,
The 'family home' is defined according to Section 2 (1) of the family Home Protection Act 1976 as 'primarily a dwelling in which a married couple ordinarily reside'. The family home cannot be sold without the consent of both spouses.
The fact that the family home is in the name of one spouse does not negate the fact that the consent of the non-owning spouse is required for a sale. Section 3(1)of the 1976 Act states that where a spouse, without the prior consent in writing of the other spouse, purports to convey any interest in the family home to any person except the other spouse, then, subject to the purported conveyance shall be void.
The family home in farming situations is unique due to the fact that it is usually in close proximity to the farmyard and lands. The farmer, also due to the nature of farming, needs to be located near the farm, as his or her presence can be required on the farm at a moment's notice.
Where a spouse is departing the family home because it is not reasonable or practical to remain, the court will usually award an amount to be given to provide alternative accommodation, provided that the remaining spouse has sufficient assets and income to provide this lump sum.
The court can make a number of Property Adjustment Orders and Sale Orders in relation to the family home, such as the transfer of the family home which is in the name of one spouse to the non-owning spouse, extinguishment or removal of the interest of a spouse in the family home or sale of the family home.
The transfer of property can be made whether or not one spouse has made a financial contribution to the purchase of the property.
The court can also allow a spouse to remain in the family home until such time as the children reach a certain age and then direct that the family home be sold and the proceeds divided between spouses or given to one particular spouse.
In the case of C vs. C, the applicant husband had a strong claim to the family home that he had previously inherited, and his wife had not contributed to the property either directly or indirectly.
The court took the view that the division of assets was not appropriate in this case in the circumstances where a proper provision was still made for the wife by providing her with a new house and maintenance for the children and herself.
However, it should be noted that the facts of every case are different, and there are no strict rules to determine how assets should be dealt with in this type of proceeding.
In the case of COC vs DOC, the court found that the needs of the family as a whole must be considered. The family home was the only property to retain any realistic equity given the precarious nature of the husband's financial circumstances. The needs of the wife and the dependent children were most closely met by transferring the entire interest in the family home to the wife.
Karen Walsh, from a farming background, is a solicitor practising at Walsh & Partners Solicitors, 17 South Mall, Cork, and 88 Main Street, Midleton, Co Cork, and also the author of 'Farming and the Law'. Walsh & Partners also specialises in personal injury claims, conveyancing, probate, and family law.
Email: info@walshandpartners.ie
Web: www.walshandpartners.ie
While every effort is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, Karen Walsh does not accept responsibility for errors or omissions howsoever arising. Readers should seek legal advice in relation to their particular circumstances at the earliest opportunity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘If you hang tough, good things do happen': 17 people get keys to independent living apartments
Elaine Cook said she hit 'rock bottom' when her landlord sold her home and she ended up living in a tent. Limerick women's refuge Thomond House, run by approved housing body, Associated Charities Trust (ACT), stepped in and initially provided Ms Cook with temporary accommodation. On Thursday, ACT officially handed over the keys of new single-bed apartments to Ms Cook and 17 other people who were experiencing homelessness in Limerick. The mixed-tenancy 'Mirth' development, which provides long-term independent living to people with low incomes, was constructed at a cost of €5 million, including €4.5 million from the State directly, plus a €400,000 donation from the JP McManus Charitable Trust. READ MORE 'When they told me I had got the apartment I broke down in tears, but all I can say is, if you hang tough, good things do happen,' Ms Cook said. 'Living in a tent was absolutely horrendous. I was lying on cardboard in my tent trying to keep myself warm, it was horrendous, trying to be clean,' she said. 'Nobody should be homeless in this day and age,' she said, adding that, in her opinion, people who are used to living in secure accommodation, particularly public servants/politicians tasked with tackling the housing crisis, 'have no understanding' of the reality of homelessness. 'Until you've actually gone through it, you don't understand what it's like,' she continued, and she called for more social housing schemes to reduce homelessness. Thanking ACT and staff at Thomond House for helping her through homelessness, Ms Cook said that now she has a secure roof over her head 'every day is a good day'. Fellow resident 'Ger' (70s), who experienced a relationship break-up and struggled to find adequate accommodation as 'a single older man', praised the scheme: 'The apartment here is luxurious compared to what I've been used to, and because I've had mental health issues over the course of my life, having this place is a great relief to me. I know now that this is here until they carry me out in a coffin.' Erin O'Shaughnessy and Teresa Nolan, who are accessing emergency accommodation and services at Thomond House in Limerick, but are still locked out of long-term housing. Photograph: David Raleigh Erin O'Shaughnessy (24) and Teresa Nolan (59) are both residing in temporary accommodation at Thomond House refuge located across the street from Mirth, but they both remain locked out of long-term housing. Last December, Ms O'Shaughnessy suffered a cardiac arrest while sleeping rough during a storm. The skilled artist said that living without long-term accommodation is 'scary' but, she said, overcoming her personal struggles has placed her in a better position to find a forever home. Her message to the Department of Housing is to 'prioritise funding' in order to build more affordable homes and ease pressure on the 'housing crisis'. 'There's really sad cases out there, and it breaks your heart to see it, but that's our reality,' she added. Life on the margins has left Teresa Nolan, (60), from Ardnacrusha, Co Clare, struggling to hold to her dream of having her own home. 'I want to move on from Thomond House and get my own little place, something that would suit me, because I've got a walking aid. The refuge is a stepping stone to somewhere else,' said Ms Nolan, who has resided at the refuge for a year and half waiting for adequate housing. The apartment block is already at capacity with 11 female residents and seven men. All residents must meet strict criteria including that they are 50 years old or more, that they are 'registered' on the local authority housing list, that they pass an assessment for living independently and that they 'must be linked to a category of homelessness'.
Irish Examiner
4 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Divorce on a farm - who keeps the house?
Dear Karen, I am getting a divorce from my wife, and I am farming. The family home is located on the family farm, and I would be anxious to keep it as it is in such close proximity to the farm. What typically happens in a situation like this? Dear Reader, The 'family home' is defined according to Section 2 (1) of the family Home Protection Act 1976 as 'primarily a dwelling in which a married couple ordinarily reside'. The family home cannot be sold without the consent of both spouses. The fact that the family home is in the name of one spouse does not negate the fact that the consent of the non-owning spouse is required for a sale. Section 3(1)of the 1976 Act states that where a spouse, without the prior consent in writing of the other spouse, purports to convey any interest in the family home to any person except the other spouse, then, subject to the purported conveyance shall be void. The family home in farming situations is unique due to the fact that it is usually in close proximity to the farmyard and lands. The farmer, also due to the nature of farming, needs to be located near the farm, as his or her presence can be required on the farm at a moment's notice. Where a spouse is departing the family home because it is not reasonable or practical to remain, the court will usually award an amount to be given to provide alternative accommodation, provided that the remaining spouse has sufficient assets and income to provide this lump sum. The court can make a number of Property Adjustment Orders and Sale Orders in relation to the family home, such as the transfer of the family home which is in the name of one spouse to the non-owning spouse, extinguishment or removal of the interest of a spouse in the family home or sale of the family home. The transfer of property can be made whether or not one spouse has made a financial contribution to the purchase of the property. The court can also allow a spouse to remain in the family home until such time as the children reach a certain age and then direct that the family home be sold and the proceeds divided between spouses or given to one particular spouse. In the case of C vs. C, the applicant husband had a strong claim to the family home that he had previously inherited, and his wife had not contributed to the property either directly or indirectly. The court took the view that the division of assets was not appropriate in this case in the circumstances where a proper provision was still made for the wife by providing her with a new house and maintenance for the children and herself. However, it should be noted that the facts of every case are different, and there are no strict rules to determine how assets should be dealt with in this type of proceeding. In the case of COC vs DOC, the court found that the needs of the family as a whole must be considered. The family home was the only property to retain any realistic equity given the precarious nature of the husband's financial circumstances. The needs of the wife and the dependent children were most closely met by transferring the entire interest in the family home to the wife. Karen Walsh, from a farming background, is a solicitor practising at Walsh & Partners Solicitors, 17 South Mall, Cork, and 88 Main Street, Midleton, Co Cork, and also the author of 'Farming and the Law'. Walsh & Partners also specialises in personal injury claims, conveyancing, probate, and family law. Email: info@ Web: While every effort is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, Karen Walsh does not accept responsibility for errors or omissions howsoever arising. Readers should seek legal advice in relation to their particular circumstances at the earliest opportunity.
The Journal
04-06-2025
- The Journal
Man who sexually assaulted five women at Lough Derg pilgrimage site jailed for four years
A WORKER AT the Lough Derg pilgrimage site, who lured five women into helping him at the retreat so he could sexually assault them, has been jailed for a total of four years. Tomas Gallagher asked the five female victims to help him repair washing machines and tumble dryers during a series of incidents at the renowned religious setting. A court heard he sexually assaulted the women at the site. Details of the plans hatched by Gallagher were outlined before Letterkenny Circuit Court last week. Gallagher, 42, initially denied the charges in interviews with gardaí. He subsequently pleaded to seven charges in all, four for sexual assaults of adults, two for sexual assault on children and one charge of invitation to a child to sexually touch. Today, having considered reports on Gallagher as well as the statements from his victims, Judge John Aylmer jailed the father-of-one for five years with the last 12 months suspended. He said the crimes, as outlined in the case, were 'egregious acts of violence in a sacred place of pilgrimage'. He told Gallagher that his crimes were 'deceitful' and 'premeditated' and that he placed them in the mid-range for such offences and which merited a sentence of seven years before mitigation. In mitigation, he noted an early plea, the fact that the accused had no previous convictions, that he appeared to be remorseful and ashamed of his actions. Judge Aylmer also noted that Gallagher had undertaken 24 counselling sessions, that he was fully cooperative and that he had been ostracised in the local community. Taking the totality factor into account and that all sentences will run concurrently, Judge Aylmer said he was reducing the overall sentence to one of five years. He then added that with regard to all efforts to encourage rehabilitation and the fact that it needs to be encouraged, he suspended the final twelve months of that sentence, meaning Gallagher will serve four years in prison. He is also to go under the supervision of the Probation Services for 12 months. Gallagher, from Rathanlacky, Dunkineely pleaded to a total of seven charges against five different women at the holy island on the shores of Lough Derg. He pleaded to six charges of sexual assault at St Patrick's Purgatory. These offences are contrary to Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, as amended by Section 37 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. He also pleaded that in the same period and location, he did attempt, by inviting, inducing, counselling or inciting a child to sexual touching. This offence is contrary to Section 4 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 2017. The victims, who cannot be named to protect their identity, ranged in age from their early teens to more mature women in their later years. All the offences took place in 2022 when Gallagher worked both as a maintenance man at the retreat, as well as driving a boat taking pilgrims to and from the island. Lured victims by asking for help Barrister for the state, Ms Fiona Crawford, BL and investigating Garda Joanna Doherty outlined the details of the incidents. Statements given to gardaí by the victims told how Gallagher had approached them, asking them to come into a laundry room as he needed help fixing various machines. The statements outlined how the unsuspecting women were asked to reach behind them into the machines while Gallagher fixed a 'pipe'. The women thought they were holding a pipe, but instead they were gripping the accused man's penis. On one occasion, Gallagher told one of his victims to twist the pipe like she was 'revving a motorcycle'. Gallagher told another victim that the 'pipe' would be soft and moist. Advertisement An older victim was approached by Gallagher who asked her to reach behind a dishwasher and hold a pipe, but she 'knew immediately it was no pipe' as it was warm and soft and felt like a penis. The woman couldn't see it, but the shocked woman jumped back and shouted: 'What the fuck is that?' The woman didn't tell anybody else about the incident that day but felt upset and did later tell her daughter about what had happened. On another occasion, Gallagher asked a young teenage girl to help him with a washing machine and asked her to hold a 'pipe'. She grabbed his penis and he told her to 'hold it there' as he chatted to her about school. The girl said how the pipe didn't feel like plastic but was warm and had a rubbery texture, and that it felt sticky or sweaty. Another teenager said Gallagher asked him to assist her with a tumble dryer and told her to put her hand behind a wooden board, and he got her to hold something. He told the girl to hold the 'pipe' harder and then to loosen it and then to increase her grip before he said: 'Yeah, that's fine.' The young woman said the pipe was 'squishy, wet and warm' and when she stood up she saw Gallagher's penis sticking out from the zip of his trousers. Denied accusations with gardaí One young woman eventually came forward and told a person in charge what had happened, which led to others coming forward making complaints of a similar nature against the man. Gallagher was interviewed by gardaí on three occasions and initially denied anything had happened. During one interview with Detective Garda Paul McHugh, Gallagher admitted asking one woman to hold a pipe on a tumble dryer as it had been leaking. He claimed the woman had got up and left for no apparent reason, and he had been left nervous and embarrassed by the incident. He later admitted the offences and entered a guilty plea. Victim impact statements from the women were read out in court, while two young women chose to read out their own statements. Victims feel vulnerable and intimidated One young woman fought back tears as she told how despite being the victim, she felt ashamed and disgusted by what had happened and often thinks about if she could have stopped this from happening to other women. She added that she often thinks about Gallagher's son and that she prays that he is safe. An older victim said she feels vulnerable and intimidated by what had happened and that she is sorry that she did not speak up sooner, but was afraid that people would laugh at her or not believe her. Another victim told how she was a student but failed her exams because she became depressed after Gallagher's assault on her. She later completed her exams and was proud of herself and was determined not to allow her attacker to ruin her life further. She said she still feels he stole something from her. A teenage victim said she has been forced to attend counselling because of anxiety and that she is now always on edge and simply cannot trust men. She decided not to come to court, as she feared that seeing Gallagher again would trigger her anxiety. Another woman, who now lives abroad and gave her evidence by video link, said she lives in an apartment with a lift and if a man gets into the lift she can't stop thinking 'what if?' She said she realises that she should not tar all men with the same brush, but Gallagher's attack had made her an angrier, wearier and a meaner person as a result. She added that she does feel disgusted by what had happened but sometimes feels glad that he had chosen her and that she had alerted the authorities to what was happening as she hated to think what number of victims there might have been. Man apologises Gallagher took to the witness stand and said he wanted to apologise to his victims. He said he 'truly regretted' his actions and was sorry for the hurt and pain he had caused his victims and their families. Asked by his barrister, Mr Colm Smyth, SC, if he realised this was a huge breach of trust, Gallagher replied that he did. He said he had engaged in 24 counselling sessions to better understand the impact his actions have had on others. Mr Smyth said his client accepted full responsibility for his actions, that he had now lost his employment and had become a pariah in the local community because of the publicity surrounding the case. He added the fact that the offences took place in a sacred place, a place of pilgrimage for Christian people going back many centuries, also had to be acknowledged. Mr Smyth suggested to Judge John Aylmer that there also has to be 'light at the end of the tunnel' for Gallagher, asking him to consider his client's remorse, his blameless life up until now and his guilty plea. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
