Latest news with #InheritanceAct
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
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. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mirror
Alt therapist wins fight to stop sister and support dogs taking mum's £420k home
Sharon Duggan and her two sisters were left their mum's home after her death in 2018, but she wanted to not sell and stay in the 420k house with her emotional support dogs A woman who sued her sisters in a bid to keep their dead mum's £420,000 home where she wanted to stay with her emotional support dogs, has lost her legal battle. Sharon Duggan who said she is "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" wanted to keep the home in Southgate, Crawley after the death of her 78-year-old mum Agnes who died in 2018. The mum had left her house to her three daughters - former NHS worker Sharon, 49, alternative therapist Brenda, 55 and oldest sister Ann, 60. 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 she needed the house for herself and her therapeutic rescue dogs, saying she is too sensitive for life in a flat. She sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money, claiming her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean 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 threw out Sharon's claim at Central London County Court. The judge accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues,' but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. The court heard that most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out. She insisted that her needs outweighed her sisters' right to get the inheritance they are due, also arguing that it would be hard to find alternative accommodation for both her and her two therapeutic dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'. Sharon claimed she 'sacrificed' her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014, also arguing that her mum was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. As well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, she claimed to have spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted 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. She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes 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." In the witness box she insisted 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. 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 the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest, or alternatively an order allowing her to buy her mum'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 will be fine in 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 Sharon had moved into her mum's house while in an 'excellent' financial position, although her finances are now badly depleted. She also 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. 'As to her ability to work I don't accept that she is unable to work at all - or at least she will be after this litigation is dealt with,' he told the court, adding that Sharon herself had accepted in court that she hopes eventually to work again. 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." The decision means the three sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate, although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial.
Scottish Sun
3 days ago
- Health
- Scottish Sun
‘Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs
Alternative therapist claimed house for herself following mum's death WILL ROW 'Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A WOMAN has lost a court fight with her sisters to keep their mum's £420,000 home for her "emotional support" dogs. Sharon Duggan claimed the home in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 Sharon Duggan lost a battle for her mum's house Credit: Champion News Service 4 She claimed she needed the home for her therapy dogs Credit: Champion News Service The "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" alternative therapist said she needed the house for her therapeutic rescue dogs. Sharon took her sisters to court after they tried to claim their share in the home, which was left to all three daughters. Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after a judge threw out Sharon's claim. Sharon had used the 1975 Inheritance Act to argue she deserved "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money. She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, which include dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, Adjustment Disorder and long Covid, meant she should get at least a life interest in the property. But while the judge accepted that Sharon has "particular issues," he concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. Central London County Court heard most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out - citing her acute physical and emotional needs and the plight of her two rescue dogs. She insisted her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and argued she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014. Sharon also claimed Agnes was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. She told the court she spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that "psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again". Her barrister 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 makes 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." Sharon said she wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest. She also alternatively suggest an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum, which would be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda insisted that Sharon and her pets would be fine in a flat. Judge Alan Johns said he was "satisfied" there was no promise that the house would go to Sharon alone. He added: "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." The ruling means the sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate - although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial. 4 Brenda insisted her sister would be fine in a flat Credit: Champion News Service
The Irish Sun
3 days ago
- General
- The Irish Sun
‘Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs
A WOMAN has lost a court fight with her sisters to keep their mum's £420,000 home for her "emotional support" dogs. Sharon Duggan claimed the home in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018. Advertisement 4 Sharon Duggan lost a battle for her mum's house Credit: Champion News Service 4 She claimed she needed the home for her therapy dogs Credit: Champion News Service The "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" alternative therapist said she needed the house for her therapeutic rescue dogs . Sharon took her sisters to court after they tried to claim their share in the home, which was left to all three daughters. Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after a judge threw out Sharon's claim. Sharon had used the 1975 Inheritance Act to argue she deserved "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money . Advertisement Read more news She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, which include dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia , PTSD , Adjustment Disorder and long Covid, meant she should get at least a life interest in the property. But while the judge accepted that Sharon has "particular issues," he concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. Central London County Court heard most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out - citing her acute physical and emotional needs and the plight of her two rescue dogs. Advertisement Most read in The Sun She insisted her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and argued she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014. Sharon also claimed Agnes was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. She told the court she spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that "psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again". Advertisement Her barrister 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 makes 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." Sharon said she wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest. Advertisement She also alternatively suggest an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum, which would be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda insisted that Sharon and her pets would be fine in a flat. Judge Alan Johns said he was "satisfied" there was no promise that the house would go to Sharon alone. He added: "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." Advertisement The ruling means the sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate - although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial. 4 Brenda insisted her sister would be fine in a flat Credit: Champion News Service 4 Sister Ann supported Brenda in her fight Credit: Champion News Service
The Irish Sun
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Irish Sun
Singer who performed with Shaggy on hit song ‘It Wasn't Me' locked in bitter feud with penniless sister over £1m fortune
A SINGER who performed with Shaggy on hit song It Wasn't Me is locked in a bitter feud with his sister over a £1million fortune. Rickardo "Rik Rok" Ducent co-wrote the single, which clocked up over 1 billion plays on Spotify and was the best-selling single of 2001 in the UK. 6 Rickardo "Rik Rok" Ducent co-wrote It Wasn't Me with Shaggy Credit: Getty 6 His locked in a bitter court fight with his sister Sarah Credit: Champion News Service 6 The singer gave evidence on behalf of his mum Credit: Champion News Service But he is now battling Sarah Ducent on behalf of his mum Dorothy Ducent in a court battle for his dad Herbert's £900,000 fortune. Herbert was an entrepreneur who established a successful construction company in Jamaica, as well as running a thriving bakery business in Brixton. He left assets that included two neighbouring properties in Sydenham, South London, that were valued at around £900,000. His Jamaican assets have yet to be quantified in the UK courts , although Sarah claims he owned significant real estate on the island. Read more news Herbert's will, which was drawn up in Jamaica, named Rik Rok's mum, who had worked in the bakery, as his main heir and cut Sarah out. But the singer, 52, claims his dad had become "estranged" from his daughter before he died 18 years ago. Sarah, who says she is now living "on the breadline," has gone to court in a bid to secure "reasonable provision" from her dad's estate. Her team say this in line with the terms of the 1975 Inheritance Act as a dependant of her late father. Most read in Showbiz But Sarah is facing a legal hurdle of proving Herbert was a legal resident in the UK at the time of his death - otherwise her claim could be struck out. Judge Ann Evans-Gordon will now have to decide whether the English courts have "jurisdiction" to deal with the claim or if it's a purely Jamaican issue. Giving evidence, Rik Rok was asked about his dad's life in Britain and Jamaica and his relationship with Sarah. Sarah's barrister Oliver Ingham suggested the star would have had little direct knowledge about what went on between the pair. But Rik Rok insisted he had lived with Sarah at times during his childhood in Jamaica and added: "My father and I were quite close so we talked about Sarah". He claimed his dad told him Sarah cut off contact with him when she moved to the UK for college. Rik Rok also told the court a family friend his sister was staying with had called up Herbert to complain about her "behaviour". He continued: "On his next trip to the UK, he confronted her about it and an argument ensued. "My father told me that she declared she wanted nothing more to do with him and he said 'are you sure that's what you want because if we're done we're done'." But Sarah insists she stayed close with Herbert and described him as a "brilliant man". The former civil servant, who is now struggling to get back to work, said: "I am hurt by the whole thing and I've lost my whole family. "My dad died, but on the day he died I didn't think I would end up being in the position I am today going through all this heartache. I don't have a step-mother any more. "This money would make a great difference in my life, I am on the breadline right now." The 1975 Inheritance Act covering Sarah's claim would only apply if Herbert was "domiciled" in the UK. Her barrister claimed there was solid evidence that Herbert, although Jamaica-born, wished to base himself in London. He also told the court the bakery owner's death was registered in the UK in 2007 a year after he renewed his British passport - suggesting he had recognised the UK as his domicile. Mr Ingham added: "Sarah Ducent asserts that the deceased, her late father, was domiciled - or had acquired domicile by choice - in the United Kingdom at the time of his death in 2007," he told the judge. "Her position is that the deceased spent extended periods residing in the UK, becoming increasingly involved in UK-based business ventures and investments, having family in the UK and owning property in England. "According to Sarah, Jamaica effectively became a secondary residence for the deceased, primarily visited for occasional business checks or leisure." But Dorothy's barrister, Jian Jun Liew, rebuked the idea that Herbert ever wanted to "anchor" himself to the UK in his latter years. She said that in 1983, he moved his entire family back to Jamaica after spending 20 years in London working at various trades. The judge has reserved her decision until a later date. Rik Rok previously told how his love of music was sparked by hearing his parents sing and said his dad was a "big reggae fan". The singer also said he never gets tired of playing "It Wasn't Me," which changed his life and left him "eternally grateful". 6 Mum Dorothy was left the £900k fortune by her late husband Credit: Champion News Service 6 Rik Rok claims his sister was estranged from their dad Credit: Getty 6 He previously spoke about how grateful he was for It Wasn't Me Credit: Getty
