OMG: See what mum left for her son and daughter before she dies

A person holding 500 Euro notes

A mother left china, delph and cutlery in her will to her three daughters - and a €3.8million jackpot her three sons.

The bizarre division of the woman’s riches was challenged in the High Court, which found she failed “in her moral duty” to provide for her eldest son.

It paled in comparison, however, with the paltry parting gifts she left her daughters following her death in 2013.

As well as the contents of her china and delph cabinets, they received just E5,000 each.

A judge said she “does not appear to have considered that she should make any significant provision” for them - but they did not challenge the will.

The three sons shared her €3.8million estate - but the eldest, who had fallen out with his mother, claimed he received a tiny fraction of it.

The 53-year-old married father of two successfully challenged the will in the High Court.

In the judgement, the dad, who works as a hackney driver after being forced out of the family farm business in 2007, received only a three and a half acre strip of land valued at €42,000 in 2013 - and worth €100,000 today.

In contrast, the man’s brother and executor of the estate and personal representative of the mother received gifts from the estate to the value of €3million - with the 199 acres of land bequeathed to him valued at €3.55million today.

Mr Justice Denis McDonald has now directed the eldest son should receive around 90 acres of lands to the value of around €1.27million.

These were lands promised by the mother to her eldest son in 1997 before their falling out and before she revoked her original will.

At the end of a 30,000 word judgement in ‘Kv K’, Mr Justice McDonald found that the mother in the family “did fail in her moral duty to make proper provision for the plaintiff in her last Will”.

The judge said that the eldest son has satisfied the high onus that rests on him to demonstrate that there was a failure of moral duty on his mother’s part.

Mr Justice McDonald said that the mother had an extensive estate and that her son “had obvious needs”.

The judge said that the mother “does not appear to have considered that she should make any significant provision for her daughters in her will”.

He said that it is notable that none of the daughters has made a claim under Section 117 of the Succession Act and “furthermore, neither of the daughters who gave evidence before me suggested that they were living in straitened circumstances”.

In his judgement, Mr Justice McDonald said that “the animus between the parties was palpable during the hearing”.