Woman ‘wastes' £100k inheritance on court battle to live in family home

Telegraph

09-07-2025

A former NHS worker faces losing her entire inheritance after a 'wasteful' court battle over her late mother's £420,000 home.
Sharon Duggan, 49, was left a third share of her mother's home after she died but said she should be allowed to stay in the property, claiming she needed the house for her and her emotional support dogs.
Ms Duggan is suing Ann and Brenda, her sisters, and has claimed she need to live at their mother's house in Crawley, West Sussex, because she is too 'hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive' to live in a noisy flat.
However, her case was kicked out at Central London county court last month, and she now faces having to pay all the lawyers' bills for the dispute.
Judge Alan Johns KC said the 'grim reality' was that the costs of the legal battle would be 'highly likely' to wipe out the share of her mother's estate that Ms Duggan is rightfully due.
'This marks a sad end to a sad case,' he said. 'It is likely that Sharon will be left with nothing of the £100,000 or more that otherwise would have been her inheritance. That is the heavy price to be paid by her for pursuing this litigation to trial.'
Too sensitive for flat life
Agnes Duggan died at the age of 78 in August 2018 and left her house to be split equally between her three daughters – Ann, the oldest sister, Sharon, a former NHS medical secretary, and Brenda, an alternative therapist.
But Sharon – who told a judge she 'is dyslexic and suffers from a variety of health issues, including chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder, [and] also has long Covid' – claimed the house for herself and her rescue dogs, saying she was too sensitive for life in a flat.
She told the court that downsizing to a flat would be too much for her, telling the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive.'
She sued her two sisters under the Inheritance Act 1975, claiming her medical ailments and sensitivity to noise meant she should get at least a life interest, or permission to reside in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and won.
Giving judgment last month, Judge Johns accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues' but ultimately ruled that a flat still be 'suitable' accommodation for her.
Returning to court to decide who should pay the costs of the trial, lawyers for Brenda and for their mother's estate argued that neither should be left out of pocket when it was Sharon who brought the case.
'Extremely wasteful'
Alex Findlay, Brenda's barrister, told the judge that offers had been made to Sharon pre-trial that would have seen her receive extra money, but she had refused.
'This has been extremely wasteful and expensive litigation, to say nothing of the stress,' he added.
Giving judgment, Judge Johns said: 'It is submitted that Sharon should not be allowed to walk away without any costs order being made – I agree.'
He ordered that she pay the lawyers' bills of both Brenda and their mother's estate, with the sums to be assessed at a later date, but estimated at over the £100,000-plus she is set to inherit.
'The grim reality of this litigation is likely to be that all of Sharon's share will be burned up by the costs, so she will end up with nothing,' he added.