Central London County Court has rejected the claims of a sister who said her hyper-sensitivities prevented her from being able to move out of her mother’s house and split the inheritance equally between the other two sisters.
The case centred on the claims of Sharon Duggan who claimed she was entitled to a greater share of the £420,000 inheritance left by her mother Agnes, saying she was owed ‘reasonable provision’ under the 1975 Inheritance Act. The claim was disputed by one of the two sisters; while the third remained neutral in the dispute.
Agnes Duggan died in August 2018 leaving her £420,000 to be split equally between the three daughters. The dispute arose after Sharon Duggan, who had cared for her mother since 2014 and lived in the property, said she needed to remain in the house for life with her two rescue dogs due to her physical and emotional issues. The judge was told Sharon suffered from a series of health issues including ‘chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder (and) also (has) long Covid.’ Her ailments, and the need to care for two therapeutic rescue dogs, meant she should get at least a life interest in the property she argued.
Following the death of Agnes, Sharon Duggan refused to move out of the property. She claimed she had ‘sacrificed’ her career to care for her mother, who suffered from dementia in later life, and as well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, said she had spent £30,000 of her own money on funding vet bills. Sharon Duggan also said she felt unable to find accommodation which suited her needs, and those of her dogs, who “help with her mental and emotional well-being”.
The dispute ended up in court where Sharon Duggan sought the transfer of the property outright or the right to a life interest, or alternatively an order allowing her to buy the property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage.
In her written arguments to the court, she 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.”
And in the witness box she added moving to a flat would be ‘too much for her.’
“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.”
In his ruling rejecting the claim Judge Alan Johns accepted that Sharon has “particular issues,” but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as “suitable” accommodation for her. He also rejected the suggestion her mother was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her.
“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 noted Sharon Duggan lived rent free and although she had spent time caring for her mother, the court’s role wasn’t 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. I don’t rule out flats as suitable accommodation.”
“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,”
Claims the other sisters were estranged from their mother were also rejected with the judge saying
“Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn’t permitted by Sharon. 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. 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 the estate.
