Latest news with #familydispute
Telegraph
2 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
2 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.
Independent Singapore
2 days ago
- Business
- Independent Singapore
Woman left injured after confronting brother over 7-figure inheritance left only to sons
Photo for illustrative purposes only (Source: Depositphotos) SINGAPORE: A 67-year-old woman was left injured after she confronted her older brother over a seven-figure inheritance that her father left solely to his sons. The woman is one of eight children. She has three older sisters, an older brother, two younger brothers, and one younger sister. Her oldest sister and youngest brother have passed, with her having five living siblings. The woman, Mdm Zhuo Jinfeng, told Shin Min Daily News that her father passed away at the age of 90 three years ago, but his will tore the family apart, as he had left his entire seven-figure fortune to his two living sons. Unhappy with this, Mdm Zhuo confronted her brother on May 31, but the argument soon turned into an altercation. She told the Chinese daily: 'I think the money should be distributed equally. After all, we helped our family run the business when we were young. I went to him to ask for money, but his wife took out a hammer and even wanted to spray insecticide on me. I used an umbrella to defend myself. 'Then my brother pushed me, causing me to roll down the stairs. My hands and feet were bruised, and my head was swollen.' She said that she called the police. Mdm Zhuo's father started out selling eggs before he expanded his business and established a neighbourhood grocery shop. The siblings grew up helping out with their father's businesses. Mdm Zhuo told Shin Min , 'I started helping my parents raise chickens and ducks, sell eggs and mixed rice when I was five or six years old. I didn't have the opportunity to go to school and was living like that until my 20s. I didn't even have CPF for many years, and now I can't get a single cent. It's really heartbreaking.' Mdm Zhuo's brother, however, claims that she had fallen on her own during the fateful May 31 confrontation and that no one had pushed her. Her brother told Shin Min Daily News that he has surveillance footage capturing the incident. He said that he has passed the footage to the police and is planning to apply for a personal protection order against his sister. See also Scary 'pontianak' ghost gets Covid-19 jab
BreakingNews.ie
4 days ago
- General
- BreakingNews.ie
Former Donegal councillor to be sentenced for assault and attack on van during family dispute
A former Donegal County Councillor is to be sentenced after admitting assaulting a man and damaging his van. Gareth Reid appeared at Letterkenny Circuit Court, where he pleaded guilty to the charges which arose out of a family dispute over land. Advertisement The former Fine Gael councillor admitted the charges which occurred following an incident at Knockfair, Stranorlar, in May 2021. The 42-year-old was charged with assaulting Paul McCool and causing him harm, the charge being contrary to section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. Reid, of Lawnsdale, Stranorlar, was also charged with an act of criminal damage. He was charged that he did, without lawful exact, damage property, namely the driver's side of a Peugeot Partner van belonging to Paul McCool, a charge contrary to section 2 (1) of the Criminal Damage Act, 1991. Advertisement He spoke only to plead guilty to the charges when he appeared before Judge John Aylmer. His barrister, Mr Peter Nolan BL, told the court that Reid has previous convictions 'going back some time'. Mr Nolan said that there is a 'very involved family history in this matter'. He told Judge Aylmer that the matter is also before the High Court over 'lands, wills et cetera' and the court should be informed about these matters. Judge Aylmer requested a probation report and asked that it include an assessment on Reid's suitability for community service. In September 2008, Reid was co-opted onto Donegal County Council, taking the seat of his grandfather, JJ Reid, following his retirement from politics but failed to be re-elected to the Council the following year.
News.com.au
26-05-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
English lord responds to son's $177 million inheritance
An English lord has blocked his eldest son from taking over the family's £85 million ($A177 million) estate because of his 'lack of achievement'. The Earl of Yarmouth, William Seymour, was left out of the fortune after a fallout, The Sun reports. According to the BBC, the 31-year-old took his parents and three siblings to court over the estate, which included the 400-year-old family seat Ragley Hall, in Warwickshire. Lord Yarmouth asked for the two trust corporations to be removed as trustees and replaced with an independent one. Lord and Lady Hertford, along with Lord Yarmouth's siblings – Lady Gabriella Seymour, Lord Edward Seymour and Lady Antonia Seymour opposed the legal claim. The three settlements which consist of the estate, including farmland, residential properties and woodland, are valued at around £45 million ($A93 million). The court heard that while William held a 'very earnest belief' that the trustees failed in their duties in the way Ragley was run, it was unfounded. In his ruling, Judge James Brightwell said he accepted the 'damaged and fractured' relationship between Lord Yarmouth and his parents and siblings was 'poor'. The judge added the bad relationship between William and his parents wasn't enough to remove the trustees. Ragley estate, which is 6,500-acres, includes a 110-room mansion, farms, a sprawling woods, and hundreds of acres of parkland. It has been in the Seymour Family for about 400 years, and has connections to Jane Seymour, Henry VIII's third wife. The Earl of Yarmouth has been embroiled in the public spat with his family since 2018. The aristocrat complained that his parents had led him to believe he would take over the running of the estate when he turned 30. William also claimed his parents weren't happy he wanted to marry former Goldman Sachs banker Lady Yarmouth, Kelsey Wells. The court previously heard that William, who was worth £4 million at 21, had not been interested in the estate until he met his wife Kelsey. After their marriage, William began complaining about how the estate was being run and argued his wife was being shown 'disrespect' for not being invited to the trustee meeting. His father, Lord Hertford, told the court he had planned for his son to take over the estate but changed his mind – believing he was no longer 'appropriate' for the job. He said William and Kelsey marrying was not the 'main reason' for the decision, but rather his son's 'lack of achievement'. In evidence, he said: 'I am proud of the fact that he went to college but made a mistake at university and didn't graduate. 'William has not followed a profession or obtained qualifications or experience to take over the running of Ragley Hall.' The judge ruled that Lord and Lady Hertford had obviously shown 'deep antagonism' towards their daughter-in-law. However, the judge said that the son's dispute as to the way Ragley is run was not well-founded. 'The fact that the claimant has a very earnest belief that the trustees have failed in their duties or should have acted differently, in an unspecified way, is no sufficient basis for a finding that they have so failed in their duties,' the judge added.
