As they prepared to spend a second night away from their home of more than 80 years, the two Blackall sisters, Eileen (87) and Rose (81), from Blackrock, Co Dublin, said their eviction had made them "determined to fight on" despite the toll it had taken.
Their return to the Supreme Court yesterday in an attempt to overturn the eviction is the latest twist in a seven-year legal wrangle which arose because of two contradictory wills. The dispute was resolved in the Supreme Court, when a High Court ruling that the property be sold to a developer for £400,000 was upheld. One estimate puts the current value of the Georgian house on two acres at £2 million as building land.
The sisters had lived at Marino Park off Mount Merrion Avenue since 1917, but were forced to leave on Monday, after bailiffs from the County Sheriff's office enforced a High Court order for possession. Their mother's last will left the property to her daughters and son, Gerard. He wanted it to be sold, as dictated by the will, and the proceeds split. When he died his widow, Mrs Iris Blackall, continued with litigation he had initiated.
Ms Rose Blackall was preparing her own affidavit on Monday, in a last-minute attempt through the High Court to prevent the eviction, when her sister-in-law arrived to take possession of the house. When the matter came before the Supreme Court again yesterday, a family friend sought time on their behalf to get legal counsel and prepare legal argument. The case was put back for mention to Friday.
The sisters' cousin, Ms Maire Walker, told The Irish Times the eviction had been a very traumatic experience for them, particularly Eileen who had spent yesterday in bed.
Despite this, they had indicated their determination to fight on by mounting a constitutional challenge. They believed this was possible because, she claimed, they could bring new evidence to the court. The two were staying in her home in Blackrock but it was "a temporary arrangement to keep them off the road".
Ms Walker said the sisters could not afford another place, having "spent seven years defending their rights", and the £400,000 a developer was prepared to pay did not reflect the property's value. (The sisters are reported to have been offered £1 million by another developer in July, with the option of staying on in the house).
Their solicitor, Mr John Gore-Grimes, said the sisters were in a "ghastly situation. They have lived in this house for so long. Their lives have now been pulled apart. These are decent and respectable people."
Having looked at all judgments in the case, however, he could see no legal way of preventing the eviction. He hoped, nonetheless, that Rose would be successful in her action initiated yesterday. Given their position, it was a shame that the value of the property had gone up a lot since the court order, he said.
There was "no mischief" in the £400,000 figure, as it was the right value at the time of the order, but the appeal process had dragged on for years. A £2 million evaluation might be a little high because the property would probably only facilitate low-density housing.
In any event, the court order stood and stipulated that the County Registrar sign a contract of sale on their behalf. A contract had been signed by the developer, who was an entirely honourable person, Mr Gore-Grimes added.
Mrs Blackall had left the property to her three daughters, including Irene who died in 1985, willing her share to her sister, Rose. The more recent will included her son and directed the sale of the property.
