Widow claims she was confused when handing over life savings

THE HIGH Court has reserved judgment on a claim by an 80-year-old widow she was ill and confused when she handed over her life…

THE HIGH Court has reserved judgment on a claim by an 80-year-old widow she was ill and confused when she handed over her life savings of €124,000 to neighbours who drove her from a nursing home to her bank.

Mary Bourke claims her neighbours George and Pauline O’Donnell of Shannon Park, Portumna, Galway, influenced her to enter into an improvident transaction knowing she was frail, ill, confused and of advanced years. She also alleges Bank of Ireland caused or permitted her to enter into such a transaction.

All three defendants deny the claims and the case concluded yesterday before Mr Justice John Hedigan who reserved judgment.

At the close of Mrs Bourke’s case, counsel for the O’Donnells argued no claim had been made out against the couple and the case against them should be dismissed; the judge refused that application.

READ MORE

The court heard Mrs Bourke had lived at the Bridge, Portumna, before she was admitted to hospital in early 2007 and later to a nursing home. The couple had looked after her home.

She claims Mr and Mrs O’Donnell signed her out of the nursing home on December 6th, 2007, and drove her to Portumna Bank of Ireland where, she claims, owing to the duress and undue influence of the O’Donnells, a bank draft was prepared and handed over to Mr O’Donnell and later converted for the couple’s benefit. Mrs Bourke claims she has no memory of the transaction.

In its defence, the bank pleaded that the branch manager had gone further than required when he had suggested Mrs Bourke seek advice from a solicitor or give a smaller amount. The bank also claims it cannot treat a customer any differently because they are elderly.

Mrs Bourke is seeking a declaration the three defendants hold the €124,000 as trustees on her behalf and she was induced to make over a bank draft for that sum to Mr O’Donnell by undue influence and negligence of the defendants.

She wants orders aimed at having the money returned to her, plus interest and damages.