Alternative therapist wins fight to stop sister and support dogs taking mum's £420k home

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 , 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 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, , 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.

READ MORE:

READ MORE:

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.