Donation by elderly mum-of-six to 'artful dodger' son rescinded

A judge has ordered the rescission of a donation by an old and vulnerable mother-of-six in favour of one of her sons who was deemed to have acted in bad faith, manipulating the frail woman knowing that his siblings were seeking her interdiction in court. 

This was the outcome of proceedings filed by those siblings against their brother and his wife over the gratuitous transfer of an 11/24 undivided share of a garage at Naxxar by their mother in favour of their sister-in-law back in April 2011. 

The parties have long been entangled in a number of court cases stemming from an ongoing feud over family property.

The defendant appeared to have “a history” of interfering in his mother’s property dispositions and this donation was certainly not the first and last attempt to acquire family property to the detriment of his siblings, observed Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca who presided over the donation case. 

Last year, a secret will by their mother in favour of the same brother was successfully challenged in court. 

Years ago, the parties’ parents had declared that they wanted all their property to be shared equally amongst their children “with no preferential treatment”.

At one stage the couple appointed the defendant as their sole attorney but later revoked that decision, claiming to have been “blackmailed”.

The father passed away in 2011.

The mother spent the last 25 years of her life at a nursing home as her health deteriorated, rendering her very vulnerable and totally dependent upon her children.

She was weak, with reduced mental faculties that placed her in a situation wherein she could easily be swayed. 

A “timeline of events” showed that both sides, namely the five applicants and their brother, vied between them to sway her decisions one way or the other.  

In April 2011, four months after her husband’s death, the woman donated the almost half-share of the Naxxar garage to her daughter-in-law, the defendant’s wife.

At the time, the donor was certified by a medical specialist as having “contractual capacity”.

Two months later she declared that she and her late spouse had previously agreed to hand over money they had received for land expropriated by the State to their son, the defendant.

She said that this was to compensate him for services he rendered to his parents in their old age.

Around that same time, the mother also drew up a secret will appointing the defendant as sole heir. 

But meanwhile, her other five children had instituted proceedings in court to have the mother interdicted and were trying to serve notice upon their brother. 

A court official who turned up at the man’s workplace repeatedly was on the first visit told that he was “off”, on the second that he was “sick” and on the third attempt that he had just completed night shift.

The court later described him as “an artful dodger” who had a habit of "escaping" court notifications.

He was finally notified through the publication of the summons and filed a reply, challenging the interdiction.

A psychiatrist certified that the mother had a “cognitive impairment”, was “vulnerable and could be exploited”, and the court issued a decree upholding the interdiction request. 

In December 2013, the five applicants filed proceedings to rescind the donation over the Naxxar property and in April 2014, the mother passed away.

When delivering judgment, the court observed that just as the defendant’s version about the secret will was not credible, so was his version in respect of the donation. 

He said that he only got to know of that will when he was presented with the bill sent by a notary whom his own daughter had allegedly looked up on "Yellow Pages" when her grandmother told her she needed the services of a notary. 

The court was also shown a DVD recording where the old woman was goaded on and on by the defendant and his wife to talk against her other family members. 

The court was concerned by the fact that two psychiatrists had issued simultaneous but conflicting certificates.

“Whether capable or not, she was certainly in an immensely weak state,” said the court.

The circumstances within which the donation was given led the court to conclude that the defendant knew about the interdiction proceedings at the time.

That day, he and his wife had accompanied the mother to their home where the contract was drawn up by a notary who was not the family notary and who was not informed about the pending interdiction application.

The defendant later claimed that he was under the impression that that application had been withdrawn.

But the court observed that the man had a “big credibility problem”.

The court was “convinced” that the defendant knew of the interdiction case when he manipulated his mother to sign the donation, acting in bad faith.

The court appointed a notary to draw up the deed of rescission at the defendant’s expense. 

Lawyers Edward Gatt and Mark Vassallo assisted the applicants.