Latest news with #AnnDuggan
Telegraph
7 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Woman who wanted family home for therapy dogs loses inheritance battle
A former NHS worker has lost her inheritance battle over her late mother's £420,000 home. Sharon Duggan, 49, told her sisters Brenda, 55, and Ann, 60, that they couldn't have their thirds of the house in Southgate, Crawley, because she needed it for her and her emotional support dogs. But a judge has now ruled 'hyper-vigilant' Sharon can move into a flat instead, and the house must be shared equally among the sisters as laid out in their mother Agnes's will. Agnes Duggan died in August 2018, aged 78, 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. Sharon sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming her medical ailments and sensitivity to noise meant she should get at least a life interest in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and has now won, after Judge Alan Johns KC threw out Sharon's claim at Central London county court. The court heard that most of Agnes's estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. But after Agnes died, Sharon insisted her needs outweighed her sisters' right to their inheritance, arguing that it would be difficult to find alternative accommodation for her and her two therapy dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'. Sharon said she 'sacrificed' her career to move in and care for Agnes in 2014, before arguing their mother was planning to change her will to leave the house to her. She also claimed to have spent £30,000 funding Agnes's vet bills for her dog, Lady, and that she 'psychologically could not cope with living in a flat again'. Her written arguments to the court said 'she is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep. She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which make finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. 'The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively.' She told the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive. 'A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon wanted either the house to be transferred to her outright, the right to a life interest, or an order allowing her to buy her mother's old property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, defended the claim, insisting Sharon and her pets could move into a flat. Ruling against Sharon, Judge Johns said: 'It's my judgment that there has been no failure to make reasonable financial provision for her. 'I am not satisfied there was any promise that the property would be Sharon's – and certainly not a promise that Sharon was confident would be carried out.' He said she had lived with Agnes rent-free and, although she had spent time caring for her mum while in declining health, the court's role wasn't simply to 'reward meritorious conduct'. 'Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate,' he said. 'I don't rule out flats as suitable accommodation,' he added, also noting that Sharon should be able to work once the court case is behind her. He also rejected her claim that Brenda was estranged from their mum towards the end of her life. 'Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn't permitted by Sharon,' he said. 'That evidence included that her telephone calls were blocked and I accept all that evidence.' 'This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of,' he said, adding that the money Sharon claimed to have spent on Lady's vet bills was an overestimate. 'Essentially, provision was made for Sharon by giving her one-third of the estate.' The decision means the three sisters are each due a third of their mother's estate, although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial.
Daily Mail
23-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
'Noise sensitive' woman sues her two sisters in inheritance battle after claiming she needs to live in their late mother's £420K home because she has 'emotional support dogs'
A woman on benefits is suing her two sisters over the inheritance of their late mother's £420,000 home, claiming she 'psychologically' can't cope to live elsewhere. Sharon, Ann and Brenda Duggan are locked in a legal battle following the death of Agnes Duggan who passed away in August 2018 aged 78. The deceased had allowed for an equal split of the home in Crawley, Sussex between her three daughters. But Sharon, 49, cared for her mother in her final years and is now blocking alternative therapist Brenda, 55, and oldest sister Ann, 60, from getting their share. She has claimed she needs to stay in the house for life with her therapeutic pets, due to being too 'noise sensitive' to live in a flat. The 49-year-old added her needs and those of her two rescue dogs - which she told Central London County Court 'help with her mental and emotional well-being' - outweigh the rights of her sisters to get the inheritance they are due and that they should only get a 'small lump sum' each, which she could raise with a mortgage. Sharon has now sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming 'reasonable provision' above her one-third share of her mum's money on the basis that her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean she should get the whole house for life. Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, is fighting her claim, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a one-bed flat. Former NHS medical secretary Sharon, representing herself in court, told Judge Alan Johns KC that she should have the right to stay put in the family home in Lyndhurst Close, Southgate, Crawley, where she moved in 2014 and cared for her mum in her last dementia-plagued years. Sharon, who lives on benefits, told the court 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'. Her sister, Brenda, has suggested she could relocate to a flat using her stake from the inheritance, but in court Sharon rejected this as totally unsuitable due to intrusive noise, her history of fragile mental health and the effect on her two dogs. In her written arguments, Sharon told the judge: 'The claimant avers that psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again. 'She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep and exacerbate her insomnia, of which she has previous experience, even having sound proofing installed in her apartment, which did little to mitigate noise. 'The claimant now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. 'If the claimant received a lump sum, it would not likely be enough to buy a one to two bedroom house in the local area and she would need to move far away from her support network, which she relies on greatly for her health issues. Brenda, who is an executor and beneficiary under Agnes' will, is opposing the 1975 Act claim, while her fellow executor and beneficiary, Ann (pictured), has adopted a 'neutral position' in the case 'The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively. Moving out of the area would also adversely impact the claimant.' Alex Findley, barrister for Brenda, challenged Sharon's claim, suggesting there is no medical evidence to show she cannot live in a flat. But Sharon replied: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive. A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. 'I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon says she gave up a career and her position on the property ladder to move in and help out her mum and claims before her death Agnes had promised that she would inherit her home, although she never got round to changing her will. She argued: 'The claimant sacrificed her career and employment prospects, and by extension her ability to purchase a property, by giving up work in the latter half of 2014 to care for the deceased, such that it could be asserted that she had a moral claim to be maintained by the deceased through the provision of accommodation. 'The deceased recognised her sacrifice and possible moral claim against her estate.' As well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, she also says she spent £30,000 of her own money on hefty vet bills for her mum's beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady, who Sharon had pledged to care for after she died. And in her written arguments to the court, she explained: 'Lady survived the deceased and was treated successfully for liver cancer but died in 2022. 'The claimant had promised the deceased she would look after Lady after her death. Lady was part of her mother's estate and the claimant avers she spent over £30,000 on vets' bills.' However, lawyers for her sister, Brenda, suggest Sharon's figures for Lady's care are a 'gross exaggeration', with much of the expenditure going on 'homeopathic and herbal remedies and not emergency medical treatment'. Mr Findlay, for mum-of-four Brenda, insisted Agnes Duggan had always been clear her estate should be equally split three ways and said Sharon's case she is unfit for future work is 'an extremely pessimistic claim which is not adequately supported by medical evidence'. 'Likewise, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified expert in mental health to support her assertion that her cognitive and mental difficulties are such that she cannot work,' he added. There was evidence Sharon had received nearly £160,000 from various sources over the past ten years, although she now claims to be penniless, despite living rent-free, said the barrister. 'Sharon claims to have an income of £1559.44 per month, no other savings or assets, and outgoings of around £1,500 per month,' he said. 'Evidence of credit card spending does not support Sharon's case to be in deep financial need. 'She has regular expenditure on going out to restaurants and cafes, online shopping, through Paypal and Amazon Marketplace, dog grooming, and there is significant monthly expenditure on online courses relating to spiritualism and alternative medicine over the last few years. 'Further, it appears that she has simultaneous subscriptions to Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. 'While she is perfectly entitled to purchase these things with her own money, the significant amount of spending which is discretionary and apparently non-essential does not reflect someone in necessitous circumstances. 'Sharon claims that she needs the property. This is a substantial three-bedroomed home; it is obviously not needed for her maintenance. 'She claims she cannot move because she cannot live in a flat due to her sensitivity to noise. There is inadequate evidence for this and it is to be noted that, although Sharon may prefer living in a house, it seems she lived in a flat on her own for many years. 'A suitable one bedroom property locally should cost less than £150,000. She should therefore be easily in a position to purchase a property for herself with a small mortgage and her share of the estate. 'Sharon certainly does not need the court to displace the deceased's wishes and take from the inheritance of her sisters to achieve this.' The barrister highlighted Brenda's own predicament - including coping with four children, suffering from multiple sclerosis and being currently jobless. 'While she does own her own home, it is not valuable, and she is not wealthy,' he said. 'The claimant appears to believe that Brenda is hiding significant wealth and makes a number of other allegations, but there is no evidence to support the claims Sharon makes about Brenda. 'Ann is also near retirement age and has dependent children. While her financial disclosure has been limited, there is no reason to believe she is sufficiently wealthy that she can forego her inheritance from her mother without some hardship.' Brenda, who is an executor and beneficiary under Agnes' will, is opposing the 1975 Act claim, while her fellow executor and beneficiary, Ann, has adopted a 'neutral position' in the case. Judge Alan Johns KC is expected to reserve his ruling in the case.
Telegraph
19-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
‘I need our mum's £420k home for my emotional support dogs'
A woman has told her younger sister she can't have her inheritance as she needs their mother's £420,000 house for her and her emotional support dogs. Agnes Duggan died in August 2018, aged 78, and left her house in Crawley, Sussex, to be split equally between her three daughters, Sharon, Ann and Brenda Duggan. But now, Sharon Duggan, 49, who moved to the house in 2014 to care for her mum, is suing her sisters on the basis that her medical ailments outweigh the rights of her sisters to get their inheritance. She claimed she needs to stay in the house for life with her rescue dogs – which she told Central London County Court 'help with her mental and emotional well-being' – as she is too 'noise sensitive' to live in a flat. She added that her sisters, Brenda Duggan, 55, and Ann Duggan, 60 should get a 'small lump sum each', which she could raise with a mortgage. Brenda, an alternative therapist, insisted her sister and her pets will be fine in a one-bed flat. Representing herself in court, Sharon, a former NHS medical secretary, told Judge Alan Johns KC that she should have the right to stay put in the family home in Lyndhurst Close, Southgate, Crawley. She told the court 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.' Brenda suggested she could relocate to a flat using her inheritance. But Sharon rejected this due to intrusive noise, her history of fragile mental health and the effect on her two dogs. Alex Findley, barrister for Brenda, challenged this claim as he said there is no medical evidence to show she cannot live in a flat. Sharon replied: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive. A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. 'I would be better off living in a car. I couldn't cope with it.' Mr Findlay insisted that Agnes had always been clear that her estate should be equally split and said Sharon's case that she is unfit for future work is 'an extremely pessimistic claim which is not adequately supported by medical evidence'. He added: 'Likewise, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified expert in mental health to support her assertion that her cognitive and mental difficulties are such that she cannot work.' 'Significant' credit card spending The barrister said there was evidence that Sharon, who lives on benefits, had received nearly £160,000 from various sources over the past ten years, although she now claims to be penniless, despite living rent-free. He said: 'Sharon claims to have an income of £1559.44 per month, no other savings or assets, and outgoings of around £1,500 per month. 'Evidence of credit card spending does not support Sharon's case to be in deep financial need. She has regular expenditure on going out to restaurants and cafes, online shopping, through Paypal and Amazon Marketplace, dog grooming, and there is significant monthly expenditure on online courses relating to spiritualism and alternative medicine over the last few years.' He highlighted that Brenda has multiple sclerosis, and is currently unemployed, and said: 'The claimant appears to believe that Brenda is hiding significant wealth and makes a number of other allegations, but there is no evidence to support the claims Sharon makes about Brenda. 'While she does own her own home, it is not valuable, and she is not wealthy.' 'Ann is also near retirement age and has dependent children. While her financial disclosure has been limited, there is no reason to believe she is sufficiently wealthy that she can forego her inheritance from her mother without some hardship.' Brenda, who is an executor and beneficiary under Agnes' will, is opposing her sister's legal claim, while her fellow executor and beneficiary, Ann, has adopted a 'neutral position' in the case. Judge Alan Johns KC is expected to reserve his ruling in the case.
Times
19-05-2025
- Health
- Times
I need mother's home — and so do my support dogs, woman tells sisters
An alternative therapist who specialised in energy wavelength treatments is locked in a court battle with her sisters over their inheritance and two emotional support dogs. Agnes Duggan, the mother, died nearly seven years ago, aged 78, and bequeathed her £420,000 home to her three daughters: Sharon, Ann and Brenda Duggan. The youngest sibling, Sharon, 49, had lived with her mother, caring for her in the last years of her life. However, she is now attempting to block her two older sisters from their share of the estate, claiming that she needs to stay in the house for life with her therapeutic pets because she is too 'noise sensitive' to live in a flat. The former NHS medical secretary is suing Brenda, a 55-year-old alternative
The Independent
19-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Sisters in court over late mum's house as youngest claims she needs it for emotional support dogs
An alternative therapist is locked in a court fight after her "sensitive" younger sister told her she can't have her inheritance as she needs their mum's £420,000 house for her and her emotional support dogs to live in. Agnes Duggan died in August 2018, aged 78, leaving her home to be split equally in her will between her three daughters, Sharon, Ann and Brenda Duggan. The house in Crawley, Sussex, where she had lived with youngest daughter Sharon, 49, caring for her in her final years, made up almost all the value of her estate. But now Sharon is blocking alternative therapist Brenda, 55, and oldest sister Ann, 60, from getting their share of their mum's estate, claiming she needs to stay in the house for life with her therapeutic pets, as she is too "noise sensitive" to live in a flat. She says that her needs and those of her two rescue dogs - which she told Central London County Court"help with her mental and emotional well-being" - outweigh the rights of her sisters to get the inheritance they are due and that they should only get a "small lump sum" each, which she could raise with a mortgage. Sharon is now suing her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money on the basis that her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean she should get the whole house for life. But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, is fighting her claim, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a one-bed flat. Former NHS medical secretary Sharon, representing herself in court, told Judge Alan Johns KC that she should have the right to stay put in the family home in Lyndhurst Close, Southgate, Crawley, where she moved in 2014 and cared for her mum in her last dementia-plagued years. Sharon, who lives on benefits, told the court 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." Her sister, Brenda, has suggested she could relocate to a flat using her stake from the inheritance, but in court Sharon rejected this as totally unsuitable due to intrusive noise, her history of fragile mental health and the effect on her two dogs. In her written arguments, Sharon told the judge: "The claimant avers that psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again. "She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep and exacerbate her insomnia, of which she has previous experience, even having sound proofing installed in her apartment, which did little to mitigate noise. "The claimant now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. "If the claimant received a lump sum, it would not likely be enough to buy a one to two bedroom house in the local area and she would need to move far away from her support network, which she relies on greatly for her health issues. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively. Moving out of the area would also adversely impact the claimant." Alex Findley, barrister for Brenda, challenged Sharon's claim, suggesting there is no medical evidence to show she cannot live in a flat. But Sharon replied: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive. A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. "I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon says she gave up a career and her position on the property ladder to move in and help out her mum and claims before her death Agnes had promised that she would inherit her home, although she never got round to changing her will. She argued: 'The claimant sacrificed her career and employment prospects, and by extension her ability to purchase a property, by giving up work in the latter half of 2014 to care for the deceased, such that it could be asserted that she had a moral claim to be maintained by the deceased through the provision of accommodation. 'The deceased recognised her sacrifice and possible moral claim against her estate." As well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, she also says she spent £30,000 of her own money on hefty vet bills for her mum's beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady, who Sharon had pledged to care for after she died. And in her written arguments to the court, she explained: 'Lady survived the deceased and was treated successfully for liver cancer but died in 2022. 'The claimant had promised the deceased she would look after Lady after her death. Lady was part of her mother's estate and the claimant avers she spent over £30,000 on vets' bills.' However, lawyers for her sister, Brenda, suggest Sharon's figures for Lady's care are a 'gross exaggeration', with much of the expenditure going on 'homeopathic and herbal remedies and not emergency medical treatment'. Mr Findlay, for mum-of-four Brenda, insisted that Agnes had always been clear that her estate should be equally split three ways and said Sharon's case that she is unfit for future work is 'an extremely pessimistic claim which is not adequately supported by medical evidence'. 'Likewise, there is no evidence from a suitably qualified expert in mental health to support her assertion that her cognitive and mental difficulties are such that she cannot work,' he added. There was evidence that Sharon had received nearly £160,000 from various sources over the past ten years, although she now claims to be penniless, despite living rent-free, said the barrister. "Sharon claims to have an income of £1559.44 per month, no other savings or assets, and outgoings of around £1,500 per month," he said. "Evidence of credit card spending does not support Sharon's case to be in deep financial need. She has regular expenditure on going out to restaurants and cafes, online shopping, through Paypal and Amazon Marketplace, dog grooming, and there is significant monthly expenditure on online courses relating to spiritualism and alternative medicine over the last few years "Further, it appears that she has simultaneous subscriptions to Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. "While she is perfectly entitled to purchase these things with her own money, the significant amount of spending which is discretionary and apparently non-essential does not reflect someone in necessitous circumstances. "Sharon claims that she needs the property. This is a substantial three-bedroomed home; it is obviously not needed for her maintenance. "She claims that she cannot move because she cannot live in a flat due to her sensitivity to noise. There is inadequate evidence for this and it is to be noted that, although Sharon may prefer living in a house, it seems she lived in a flat on her own for many years. "A suitable one bedroom property locally should cost less than £150,000. She should therefore be easily in a position to purchase a property for herself with a small mortgage and her share of the estate. "Sharon certainly does not need the court to displace the deceased's wishes and take from the inheritance of her sisters to achieve this." The barrister highlighted Brenda's own predicament - including coping with four children, suffering from multiple sclerosis and being currently jobless. 'While she does own her own home, it is not valuable, and she is not wealthy," he said. 'The claimant appears to believe that Brenda is hiding significant wealth and makes a number of other allegations, but there is no evidence to support the claims Sharon makes about Brenda. 'Ann is also near retirement age and has dependent children. While her financial disclosure has been limited, there is no reason to believe she is sufficiently wealthy that she can forego her inheritance from her mother without some hardship." Brenda, who is an executor and beneficiary under Agnes' will, is opposing the 1975 Act claim, while her fellow executor and beneficiary, Ann, has adopted a 'neutral position' in the case. Judge Alan Johns KC is expected to reserve his ruling in the case.
