A long-running dispute between a stepfather and three bereaved siblings over the operation and ownership of a Co Meath nursing home has finally settled “in principle” at the High Court.
In October of last year, Rathfeigh nursing home co-owner Jim Cahill was judged to have left his bereaved stepchildren alone in the family home before he “cut them off from all income” and was ordered to pay them €410,000 in damages and legal fees.
Their mother, Brigid Seepersad, died in a road traffic incident while on holiday in 2008, days after she and Mr Cahill divorced.
Ms Justice Eileen Roberts then said the now-adult Tara, Karl and Desmond Seepersad had, for some years, been without income due under a 2009-2010 settlement agreement with their estranged stepfather, Jim (John James) Cahill, when they were aged between 17-18 and their early 20s.
RM Block
The judge said she would award general and aggravated damages against Mr Cahill, once she made final orders in the case over the dissolution of the parties’s business partnership concerning the operation of Hill View – a nursing home that was owned by the deceased, Ms Seepersad.
At the High Court on Thursday, in finalising that order, Ms Justice Roberts heard from Thomas P Hogan SC, for Mr Cahill, that the matter had “settled in principle” between the parties. He said documents were to be drawn up resolving the matter for just over €1.5m regarding Hill View nursing home in Rathfeigh, Co Meath.
The original final settlement was conditional on Mr Cahill purchasing the nursing home that resulted in a mixture of “bullet” and “staged” payments for which he needed to get loan approval from Ms Seepersad’s children.
The remaining sums drawn up by Mr Cahill were just over €1m but an agreed February deadline had not been met, as Mr Cahill needed a loan approval, pushing out the schedule of closure, counsel said.
He said that Mr Cahill was now in a position to close the matter, as he had received loan approval.
Edward Farrelly SC, for the Seepersad side, said that there was an “undervalue” in the payment and that the home had twice been valued at €1.8m in 2023, then higher in 2014 and that years of litigation had been involved.
Mr Farrelly said Mr Cahill had “starved” his clients of cash to get the nursing home undervalued and there had been “no information whatsoever” in disclosing his loan approval or for how much.
“We don’t even know how much he [Mr Cahill] is borrowing. He [Mr Cahill] said he is to the ‘pin of his collar’ but there is no evidence,” said Mr Farrelly.
Counsel said that on any valuation, the Seepersads “won’t be bullied again” by the terms allegedly made by Mr Cahill.
Counsel added that his clients knew that an appointment of a receiver over the home meant that they would receive less money. He said his clients “might not receive anything, at all”, when Mr Cahill was the “wrongdoing partner”.
After the case broke for discussion between the parties at lunchtime, Ms Justice Roberts was told by Mr Hogan that the matter had settled and money would be paid on Friday with deeds expected to be exchanged before the new year. Ms Justice Roberts noted that this was the thirtieth time the case had been before her and adjourned the matter to January, for mention.
