Latest news with #SharonDuggan
Telegraph
6 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 Mirror
6 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.
The Sun
6 days ago
- Health
- The 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. 4 4 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 4
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
'Noise sensitive' woman who told her sisters she needed their mother's £420,000 home for her emotional support dogs loses inheritance row
A woman who took her sisters to court in a bid to keep their late mother's £420,000 home for herself and her two 'emotional support dogs' has lost her case. Sharon Duggan launched legal proceedings against her sisters Brenda, 55 and Ann, 60, after their mother Agnes died in 2018 to block them from the inheritance. Despite being entitled to a third of the estate, Sharon sued for a larger share under the Inheritance Act, claiming her medical conditions made it impossible for her to live in a flat and that she needed to stay in the family home for life. She cited a wide range of health problems, including PTSD, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and long Covid, and told the court her two rescue dogs 'help with her mental and emotional well-being. The judge accepted that 'hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive' Sharon has 'particular issues,' but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as 'suitable' accommodation for her. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, therapist Brenda fought back and has now won, after Judge Alan Johns threw out Sharon's claim at Central London County Court. The court heard most of the estate was tied up in the Crawley, Sussex property, where Sharon had cared for Agnes during her final years with dementia. 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 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 argued she had 'sacrificed' her career to become a full-time carer and claimed her mother intended to change her will in her favour. She also said she had spent £30,000 of her own money on vet bills for her mother's dog, a Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, called 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 make finding a 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 said. 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 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 will be fine in a flat. Ruling against Sharon, Judge Johns said: 'It's my judgement 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 mother'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 mother while in declining health, the court's role wasn't simply to 'reward meritorious conduct'. He said: '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. '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 mother 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 noted, 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 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.
