Eamonn Lillis is fighting to stop his daughter getting a half share of the home

Zamidan

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
60


ellie08

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
12,325
Wife-killer fights daughter for his home saying: 'She can have it when I'm dead' | Mail Online


Legally Im sure hes more than entitled to his wifes home/homes that they jointly owned together...But morally its sick that apart from the short sentance ...It looks like a divorce would have cost him a lot more...Great Kill the wife ..Do a bit of time..and whoppeee I get the lot..There has to be something so wrong with a Justice system that lets this happen.
What a psychopath.
 

jerry springer

Active member
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
268
Please bear in mind this is coming from the Daily Mai so comes with a masive health warning ...l I am sure he never said such words I. This is going through the courts at the moment
 

Inda Kenny

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
516
I thought that because he killed his wife he had no longer a claim to the house.?
The house was jointly owned and in her will his wife left everything to the daughter hence he is now fighting for his share of the house
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
Seems like a really nice guy :)

It cost us a few bob to provide him with free legal aid :(

I believe the figure was about €500,000 - mayde deduct the €500,000 from the value of the house !!!!!!!
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
The house was jointly owned and in her will his wife left everything to the daughter hence he is now fighting for his share of the house
If the house was jointly owned then he already owns his half of it.

I don't see how being found guilty of the manslaughter of his wife can change his property rights.
 

baldur0300

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
775
I'm not sure what he can possibly argue. He cannot inherit from his wife, so it would seem likely that their daughter will inherit her share of the house.
 

berberie

Active member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
162
I thought that because he killed his wife he had no longer a claim to the house.?
The house was jointly owned and in her will his wife left everything to the daughter hence he is now fighting for his share of the house
I agree I thought it was mentioned around the time of the trial that legally he could in no way gain from her death as he caused it. Would that not automatically mean he couldn't inherit anything which would be part of her 'estate'?.
 

baldur0300

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
775
I agree I thought it was mentioned around the time of the trial that legally he could in no way gain from her death as he caused it. Would that not automatically mean he couldn't inherit anything which would be part of her 'estate'?.
Section 120 Succession Act, 1965

A sane person who has been guilty of the murder, attempted murder or manslaughter of another shall be precluded from taking any share in the estate of that other, except a share arising under a will made after the act constituting the offence, and shall not be entitled to make an application under section 117.

He retains ownership of his property but cannot inherit anything from his wife.
 

asset test

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
14,593
I think because the property is in joint names that it will pass automatically to the survivor, Mr. Lillis. There is a presumption in law that property held jointly by husband and wife will pass to the survivor. So he already owns one half, and will succeed to the other under survivorship rules in joint tenancy.

I am not sure, but I think this survivorship rule is outside the scope of the Succession Act provisions mentioned above, and that therefore the family is fighting this through the courts. Why else would they be contesting this, if he would not be entitled under the S Act?

I think in another murder case in Goatstown, the perpetrator inherited by survivorship property held by himself and his murdered wife, but not anything held solely by her.

I'm sure the legal eagles will be on to clarify for us. I would be interested to know.
 

slippy wicket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
4,492
If true, on a level of scuminess this has to be 10/10
 

Skypeme

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
1,914
Seems like a really nice guy :)

It cost us a few bob to provide him with free legal aid :(

I believe the figure was about €500,000 - mayde deduct the €500,000 from the value of the house !!!!!!!
Better watch out - the human/civil/whateverelse rights mafia will be after you on this one!
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Eamonn Lillis, convicted of the manslaughter of his wife, is due to serve his sentence out shortly. Currently, he will inherit as his wife is dead by his hands, which is disgusting, due to a contradiction in the law.

The Law Reform Commission announced that it is reviewing the law aimed at preventing a husband or wife retaining property they own jointly with their spouse if they have killed them. People in Ireland would believe that the Succession Act of 1965 holds and you can't profit from your crimes. But that is not the situation, and thus the Law Reform Commission's latest paper
Since he crashed a brick four times down on his wife's head on the patio of their Howth home, Eamonn Lillis has pocketed the €600,000 proceeds of the successful media company that Celine founded, plus his €450,000 pension as an employee of that firm.

He has amassed hundreds of thousands more euro from his 50pc share of the sale of their joint assets, including the couple's family home on Rowan Hill in Howth, north county Dublin; a holiday home in France, and investment property in Sutton.
In her High Court judgment in 2011, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy ruled that Celine Cawley's share in the property should be held in trust for their daughter Georgia.

In her ruling, the judge called for clarity in the law. "The issues raised in these proceedings demonstrate that, ideally, there should be legislation in place which prescribes the destination of co-owned property in the event of the unlawful killing of one of the co-owners by another co-owner."
Greedy Lillis wanted it all, leaving daughter just
 
D

Deleted member 34656

Eamonn Lillis, convicted of the manslaughter of his wife, is due to serve his sentence out shortly. Currently, he will inherit as his wife is dead by his hands, which is disgusting, due to a contradiction in the law.







Greedy Lillis wanted it all, leaving daughter just
I remember the case but don't remember any evidence that he smashed a brick on his wife's head four times. I do recall thinking that he had done his best to protect his daughter from the worst of it.

I presume he is still Georgia's legal guardian so it is up to him how he provides for her.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
I remember the case but don't remember any evidence that he smashed a brick on his wife's head four times. I do recall thinking that he had done his best to protect his daughter from the worst of it.

I presume he is still Georgia's legal guardian so it is up to him how he provides for her.
You're missing the point. He stands in monetary terms to benefit from killing his wife, which he was convicted of. A basic tenet of crime law surely is that one should not benefit from the crime. And money would have been motive.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
49,805
I don't get the issue. He legally owned 50% of everything, as I understand it, so it seems that he has received 50% of everything. If anything, because his poor late wife was said to be the brains, surely the business has lost value?

Is this dispute over his wife's share?

Edit: I see that it's about his wife's share. Won't his daughter ultimately inherit that when he dies, as she was originally meant to (unless he blows it all)? Tricky one.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top