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.
Champion News ServiceSharon Duggan lost a battle for her mum’s house[/caption]
Champion News ServiceShe claimed she needed the home for her therapy dogs[/caption]
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.
Brenda insisted her sister would be fine in a flatChampion News Service
Sister Ann supported Brenda in her fightChampion News Service Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
