‘Noise sensitive' woman blows entire £100k inheritance on court row with sisters over home for ‘emotional support' dogs

The Sun

09-07-2025

A WOMAN has blown her entire £100k inheritance on a "wasteful" legal battle against her sisters for her late mum's home.
Sharon Duggan tried to block her siblings, Brenda 55, and Ann, 60, from their inheritance, arguing she needed the £420,000 house for her therapeutic rescue dogs.
4
The "noise sensitive" 49-year-old claimed the property in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018 and refused to move out.
She said should be allowed to stay in the property, claiming she needed it for her and her emotional support dogs because she could not bear living in a noisy flat.
Former NHS worker Sharon then took her older sisters to court after they tried to claim their equal third share in the home, which was left to all three daughters.
But she now faces a "grim reality" after her case at the Central London County Court was kicked out last month, with a judge ruling in favour of her siblings.
Judge Alan Johns KC accepted that Sharon had "particular issues," but concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her.
It means she must now foot a hefty lawyers bill for the "extremely wasteful and expensive" dispute.
Ordering her to stump up the costs, which are yet to be calculated, he said: "This marks a sad end to a sad case.
"It is likely that Sharon will be left with nothing of the £100,000 or more that otherwise would have been her inheritance.
"The grim reality of this litigation is likely to be that all of Sharon's share will be burned up by the costs, so she will end up with nothing
"That is the heavy price to be paid by her for pursuing this litigation to trial."
Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after Judge Johns 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.
Parents Sue Charity Over £100k Fund After Losing Son and Facing Daughter's Illness
She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, including dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD and long Covid, meant she was entitled to the house.
Sharon argued that her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and told how she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014.
Most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years.
She went on to claim that Agnes had plans 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".
Her barrister added: "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."
But Brenda insisted that Sharon would be fine to live in a flat.
4
4
Finding in favour of Sharon's sisters, Judge Johns continued: "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.
"This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of.
"Essentially, provision was made for Sharon by giving her one third of the estate.
"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."
Returning to court to decide who should pay the costs of the trial, lawyers for Brenda and for their mum's estate argued that neither should be left out of pocket when it was Sharon who brought the case.
Brenda's barrister told the judge that offers had been made to Sharon pre-trial which would have seen her receive extra money, but she had refused.
Judge Johns ordered that she pay the lawyers' bills of both Brenda and their mum's estate, with the sums to be assessed at a later date.
He added: "It is submitted that Sharon should not be allowed to walk away without any costs order being made. I agree."
Sharon was not present in court for the costs hearing.
4