The Court of Appeal has confirmed a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court ruling that a couple were not entitled to take over a house in legacy because they had not looked after two women as per conditions laid down in a will.

The judgment was delivered in a case filed by Innocenzo and Marianne Vassallo against Elena Falzon. As Ms Falzon was absent from the country, the case was dealt with by curators appointed to represent her.

Mr and Mrs Vassallo claimed that, in December 1982, Carmela Farrugia had drawn up a will leaving her house in Busketto Road, Rabat by title of legacy to that person who looked after her and a certain Carmelina Darmanin until their death. The Vassallos claimed they had looked after Ms Farrugia up till her death and that, consequently, they were entitled to receive her house by title of legacy.

They asked the court to order Elena Falzon, Ms Farrugia's heir, to comply with the will and to give them the Rabat house.

However, Ms Falzon told the court that Mr and Mrs Vassallo certainly did not qualify for the legacy as they had never looked after and cared for Ms Farrugia. It was also clear that the Vassallos had never looked after Ms Darmanin, as she had died before they had rendered any services.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had dismissed Mr and Mrs Vassallo's claims and the couple then appealed to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Albert J. Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.

The court heard that Ms Farrugia had died alone at home in November 1989 and that the police had had to force their way into the house as she had lived alone.

Ms Darmanin had died at St Vincent De Paule Hospital in November 1985 after spending almost three years there. The evidence produced clearly showed that the Vassallos had never provided any services to Ms Darmanin. Nor did it result that they had provided any services to Ms Farrugia in the two and a half years before her death.

It was clear that Ms Farrugia lived alone in filthy conditions. The Court of Appeal noted that the Vassallos had found out about Ms Farrugia's legacy around one year prior to her death. They had engaged an architect to carry out considerable structural works in her Rabat house in July 1989 and they had planned to live with Ms Farrugia after the works were completed.

The court ruled that Ms Farrugia's legacy was intended to benefit that person who looked after and cared for her and for Ms Darmanin during the rest of the lives. The beneficiary of this legacy had therefore to look after and care for two persons.

It was obvious that the Vassallos had not rendered any services in favour of Ms Darmanin for she had been left in a residential institution and not taken home.

This was contrary to the purpose of the legacy because this intended to ensure that both Ms Farrugia and Ms Darmanin would be looked after at home.

Ms Farrugia had bequeathed her home to whoever looked after her, therefore the court had to determine whether the Vassallos had fulfilled this function. The court added that Mr and Mrs Vassallo had rendered very few services, if at all, to Ms Farrugia. They had expressed their intention of looking after her one year before she died but their intention was of first carrying out works at Ms Farrugia's home and then moving in with her. But Ms Farrugia had died before the Vassallos had moved in and she was left to live alone in filth.

The concept of looking after an individual implied a certain extensive amount of help and care on a daily basis so as to ensure that Ms Farrugia did not feel left alone. In this case, Mr and Mrs Vassallo had not provided this type of interest but had shown an interest in carrying out works at her house.

The court therefore found against Mr and Mrs Vassallo and confirmed the first court's judgment.