Bank’s claim for possession of property of deceased person is not statute barred

Whether case brought within time - plaintiff bank seeks possession of property of a woman who died - the Defendant is the woman’s daughter - sued in her capacity as executrix of the estate - in 2006 the Plaintiff issued a life loan mortgage offer letter to the deceased which offered a life loan facility - secured by a first legal mortgage or charge over the property – signed contract in December 2006 – in January 2007 the deceased executed a mortgage deed over the property in favour of the Plaintiff - February 2007 the mortgage was registered on the Folio - Plaintiff advanced the sum of €60,000 to the deceased by way of a loan account - less than a year later the deceased passed away - Defendant daughter named as her executrix - Plaintiff is within time to bring these proceedings for possession - sums due and owing on foot of the life loan over €145,000 as of 2022 - Defendant’s case is that the interest charges on the loan is statute barred - parties accepted that the life loan became due upon the death of the deceased - July 2008 - proceedings were not issued until September 2019 - eleven years after the death of the deceased – Court relied on W.F. Shap (Ireland) DAC v. Fingleton - any proceedings which were instituted prior to death would be premature – Court found that the proceedings are not statute barred bearing in mind that the proceedings are for possession – the Court found that the Defendant had not acted to her detriment by reason of any delay or laches – Court found that the defence of laches did not apply in this case – Defendant says that the bank was aware of the death since 2011 - significant increase in the sums due by virtue of the interest that has accrued from the date of death - amount of interest substantially exceeds the original life loan - Defendant says that the opportunity to raise finances is now lost compared to the position had the proceedings been instituted at an earlier time – Court found that there was no explanation for the enormous delay in this case – no explanation from the bank - Court found that the Plaintiff is entitled to possession – the case for possession was not statute barred - whole purpose of the loan facility was that the principal monies would not become payable until the death of the mortgagor - the reason the bank is entitled to possession is because the life loan has not been repaid – Court found that there was at least an arguable case that the defence of the statute of limitations arises in regard to the interest claimed – the court found that there was an issue to be determined in regard to the status of the interest claimed - issue should go to plenary hearing.