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 Examiner
2 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
Irish Examiner
03-06-2025
- Irish Examiner
Ask a solicitor: Should I be worried about trespassers on my land?
Dear Karen, I am always concerned about trespassers coming on my land and making a claim against me. It seems very unfair that they possibly could. What is the law in relation to this? Dear Reader, This is a worry for many landowners. A trespasser is defined as 'an entrant, other than a recreational user or a visitor'. Such entrants do not have permission or authority to be present on the property. A burglar falls within this definition. The duty owed to trespassers is set out in Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995. It is similar to that owed to recreational users. However, an occupier may not be liable for injury or damage unintentionally caused to a person who enters on land or premises for the purposes of committing an offence, unless the court determines otherwise. The decision of the court will be based on the facts of the case. In the case of Williams vs. TP Wallace Construction Limited, the entrant plaintiff did not have permission or authority to be on the property in question. The defendant company had hired the plaintiff to install guttering at a shopping centre. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff attended the defendant's premises unannounced in order to establish whether the job was being carried out properly. The plaintiff proceeded to inspect the site without express permission while the site workers were on a break and the architect was not present. The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries he sustained as a result of a fall from a ladder, which was not tied to the scaffolding. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was negligent in failing to have the ladder secured. The court held that the plaintiff was not a visitor, but was instead a trespasser, because he was not on the site by invitation or arrangement. The court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's case on the basis that the failure to tie the ladder to the scaffolding was not an act of reckless disregard, and the defendant did not breach his duty to the plaintiff, a trespasser, in this regard. The 1995 Act does not draw a distinction between an adult and a child, so a child is owed the same duty of care, however gauging the standard of reckless disregard, the court must have regard of all circumstances, such as the conduct of the person, and the care that he or she may reasonably be expected to take for his or her own safety while on a premises. Naturally, a child is not aware of dangers as an adult would be, and they may ignore or fail to understand warning signs. As a result, the courts have traditionally afforded more leniency to children who come onto premises as a trespasser, if it could be shown that the child was at an age that he or she would 'follow a bait as mechanically as a fish' and the occupier's premises contained 'an allurement'. The case law states that in order for something to be an allurement, it must be both 'fascinating and fatal'. In the case of O'Leary vs John A. Wood Limited, the court held that 'an object should not be considered an allurement unless the temptations which it presents are such that no normal child could be expected to restrain themselves from intermeddling even if he knows that to intermeddle is wrong'. Clearly, the allurement approach in these types of cases is of great benefit to children, but the courts appear to have taken a restrictive approach so as to ensure that the net for liability is not cast so widely as to be unjust. 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. Read More Ask a solicitor: A contractor fell off a ladder on my farm
