Seniors Beware of Care For Life Agreements

Senioirs beware care for life

Seniors often fall victim to the best of intentioned Care For Life Agreements with a child, that often turn disastrous.

I was recently retained by a senior who advanced over $400,000.00 to his only son and his wife. He did so on the understanding they would purchase a home in which they all would live and the couple would care for the senior for the rest of his life. The house was purchased in the couple’s name. The senior lived downstairs in the home until four years later when his son met an untimely death. Title to the house was then transferred to the widow as surviving joint tenant whereupon she immediately evicted her father-in-law. The end result is the senior is now penniless and the widow has pocketed the monies and departed. In only four short years, my client went from having control of his life and finances to being a destitute and broken person.

This devastating fact pattern is unfortunately happening all too frequently. Unquestionably many lawyers and estate practitioners will be consulted with respect to these types of failed agreements in the coming years. As our population continues to age, more of these informal kinds of family arrangements will certainly be made. The typical scenario will involve a senior transferring property in exchange for a promise of lifetime care. Most often the property will be the family home which is transferred outright or into joint tenancy with the caregiver. Such arrangements typically will be made between a parent and one of their adult children or with another relative or trusted friend. Caregiver kids range form those that have never left home to the black sheep who returns after a long absence to take care of elderly parent and winds up with the house.

Often these arrangements are entered with the best of intentions, however the parties are naïve as to the careful thought and discussion required. Such agreements are usually oral and accordingly vague. They are likely done without any legal advice and the formalization of such agreements is usually almost non-existent.

From the senior’s perspective, the care agreement is perceived to be a simple solution to allow him or her to stay in the home until death. Many seniors may fear finishing their days, isolated, in a nursing home or other institution. From their perspective transferring the property to the caregiver, in return for continued care, may seem an ideal solution. They often look upon their prospective caregiver through “rose coloured glasses” and naively look forward to a harmonious life surrounded by loving family or friends who are grateful for the substantial financial benefit bestowed upon them.

There is often an incentive for both sides to enter such an arrangement. Many seniors of modest means purchased homes years ago. Those homes have now greatly appreciated in value. Potential caregivers are often relative newcomers to the real estate market and in the absence of some financial assistance likely could not afford to buy such a home.

Thus the demographics of our aging population, the high cost of real estate and the increasingly uncertain economic conditions, will combine to ensure the future proliferation of such arrangements. Just as certainly, there will be a boom in related litigation when such arrangements fail.

These informal agreements unfortunately leave disastrous legal problems for the parties when they fail. The results may be especially serious for the senior. The outcome is often the outright loss of the home leaving the senior extremely vulnerable. On the other hand, after many years service, the caregiver may become embroiled in litigation with rival siblings who suspect undue influence on the parent.

There are many legal pitfalls to informal care for life agreements. Invariably there is little consideration by the parties of the innumerable hypothetical questions that should be asked before concluding such an arrangement. A myriad of potential problems may thwart the success of such arrangements. They include control issues, unforeseen longevity or early death, incompatibility, depression, hospitalization, divorce or financial ruin of the caregiver.

A review of case law indicates that most care for life arrangements fail because of the breakdown of the relationship between the parties. The individual expectations are rarely discussed in advance, let alone reduced to writing. Such breakdowns may result in the senior being evicted from his or her former home. In effect they may lose their home and their financial security without receiving the emotional security of the promised long term care. Needless to say, such a loss will render a senior financially, psychologically and emotionally insecure.

A carefully drafted care agreement prepared by a lawyer will usually provide better protection to both seniors and caregivers. It is however, a simple fact that many people will continue to make informal arrangements on their own. There are a number of motives for avoiding the use of lawyers, ranging from false sense of economy to a preference to follow “a wish and a prayer” that things will work out. Indeed some seniors are even reluctant to mention the care agreement when providing legal instructions to transfer the property to a child or friend.

From a practice point of view, a lawyer or notary should always make detailed enquiries to determine the reasons a substantial asset is being transferred for little or no consideration. If the underlying facts indicate that a “care for life arrangement” exists, then written advice is essential urging the client to protect himself or herself properly documenting the agreement in writing. A detailed written agreement may also help minimize future family conflict. It can assist in explaining the arrangement to other family members who might otherwise challenge the land transfer after the senior’s death. At the very least, where the home or other real property is to be transferred to the caregiver, the legal adviser should urge the senior to register a life interest against the title.

2. LEGAL DISCUSSION

Almost invariably the informality of care for life arrangements will create difficulties for courts charged with interpreting the actual terms of the agreement. A review of current case law indicates the challenge to courts faced with litigation involving such arrangements. It seems the courts are pulled between handling such matters as contract cases or treating such transfers as gifts. In the case of contracts they must apply the legal principles of contract law. In the case of gifts they may apply equitable principles such as undue influence, unconscionable transactions, or resulting trusts. The problem for those wishing to review the law is compounded by difficulty in finding the appropriate index titles. For eg. case law in this area may be reported under several different headings such as “undue influence”. It is likely not referenced to litigation involving “care for life” agreements.

While such agreements may appear to be contracts, the courts often presume that family members are relying on mutual trust and affection and do not intend to create legal relations in their arrangements. Thus, the most recent cases tend to treat such informal care agreements as gifts, rather than contracts.

While there are usually only fleeting discussions as to the terms of the care arrangement, the transfer of the property from the senior to the caregiver, will certainly create legal relations between them. Subsequent litigation usually involves the question of who owns what interest in the subject property.

If the courts conclude the care agreement amounted to a contract they are then expected to interpret the contract and determine any damages payable for breach of that contract. The law relating to contract will be involved, including:

(a) The intention of the parties to legally contract. Was there a meeting of the minds and the necessary intent to make a binding contract?

(b) Consideration. If there is a contract, then the promise to care will generally be found as the consideration for the transfer of the property;

(c) Terms of the Contract. An oral agreement to provide care for life will invariably raise many issues of the express and implied terms based on the reasonable expectations

(d) Uncertainty. In the decision of Folia v Trelinski, 1996 New Westminster Supreme Court Registry No. 19961104, a promise to care for a parent for life was found to be enforceable. It was held not to be uncertain.

In that case, a mother transferred her home to her daughter and son-in-law. In exchange they promised to care for her and to allow her continue to live in the home the transaction set aside. The relationship broke down very quickly.

The mother left the house and ultimately sued to have the transaction set aside. The caregivers asked the mother to vacate the home during the ongoing litigation.

The Courts enforced the agreement and stated that the mother had not been permanently evicted, and was only evicted for the duration of the litigation. Therefore, the act of asking the mother to leave the home, did not repudiate the contract. The mother was only allowed damages for the time period out of the home, as under the care agreement, the children were to provide care. In his reasons for judgment, the judge stated living together for the parties, particularly after the litigation, will be difficult, but not impossible.

Surely neither party was satisfied with that outcome

——————————————————————————–

e) Breach of Contract

If an important term of the contract is not performed, the aggrieved party can sue for damages or, if the term of the contract is sufficiently important, then to treat the contract at an end.
Rescission of the contract is another remedy, where the Courts may order compensation so as to put the parties back to the position that they were in before entering the agreement.

The problem from the senior=s perspective, is that contract law can often be applied by the Courts in a somewhat harsh manner, just as it was in the Folia case aforesaid. Contract law is far more rigid in its application and remedies than legal remedies that flow from the Courts of Equity. As seen in the Folia v Trelinski case, the Courts gave a contract law remedy of damages only. The Court=s view that it is the parties that make their own bargain, and unless it is unconscionable, then the Courts may well enforce what may be a poor bargain between the senior and the care giver.

As previously stated, most courts tend to view the transfer by the senior as a gift. In Peter v Beblow 1993 1 S.C.R., the Court defined a gift as Athe intentional giving to another without expectation of remuneration

Probably the most common allegation made in this type of litigation is that of undue influence. This was the situation in Hicks v Hicks, (1997) B.C.J. No. 296, in which I was counsel . My client was a son of the senior and he successfully had a transfer of land set aside after his mother=s life, in favour of his

The amount of influence must amount to coercion. It is often difficult to prove, as there are rarely any witnesses to the influence that was exerted. The Court will investigate any suspicious circumstances

Another equitable remedy available to the Courts is to find that there is a resulting trust, which is an implied trust that is created when a person transfers legal title to another , (usually for little or no consideration), but intends to retain the beneficial interest. The Courts of equity presume a bargain, and in such a situation, the Courts will often presume that the property is held in trust by the recipient for the transferor or his or her estate. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that the transfer was intended to be a gift.

3. CONCLUSION

As stated above, it is my view that these types of arrangements will continue to proliferate in the future, and will undoubtedly lead to an increase in litigation in this area. The B.C Law Institute ( formerly the Law reform Commission) is currently undertaking a project to investigate these agreements and determine what if anything should be done about them. For example, the State of Alabama has a statute that states A any conveyance of realty wherein a material part of the consideration is the agreement of the grantee ( the caregiver) to support the grantor( the senior) during life is void at the option of the grantor (senior).

It is important for seniors in particular to know that disastrous legal problems can occur, often to their detriment, when they enter into these types of care for life agreements with family or friends, and the arrangement does not work out. Seniors need to be educated about these pitfalls and encouraged to reduce the contract to writing, preferably with legal assistance. Practitioners, need to be educated to ask the right questions of the seniors when transfers of homes are occurring to family or friends for little or no consideration. If the practitioner fails to take adequate steps to protect the rights of the seniors in those situations, then the professional may be met in the future with an allegation of professional negligence.

Thanks and acknowledgment to Professor Margaret Hall, of the University of British Columbia, for her extensive work involving the Law Institute’s project on Legal issues affecting seniors and providing me with her consultation paper and background materials, which I made use of in the preparation of this paper.

The ultimate in elder abuse can even occur as a result of an incentive on the part of an abusive caregiver to hasten the death of the senior.

Mr. Attorney: Shine The Light on Undue Influence

Mr. Attorney - Shine The Light on Undue Influence

(This article was written in 2006 to the attorney general to encourage the introduction of a presumption of undue influence when large bequests are left to person  in a position of dominance or dependence.

It was successful and resulted in Section 52 of WESA, of which there is a separate blog on this site.)

In the summer of 2006 the British Columbia Law Institute delivered to the Attorney General a sweeping report entitled Wills, Estates and Succession: A Modern Legal Framework. That report included many well-considered recommendations for changes to modernize this area of law.

One laudable change not advanced, however, involves allegations of undue influence in the drafting of a will. Committee members were equally divided on this question and therefore did not recommend a change. To its credit, the AG Ministry kept this issue alive and recently solicited input from the legal profession. Presumably they had concerns about the obvious potential for elder financial abuse under the current state of the law.

In this paper, we hope to illustrate the clear need for legislation to change the law in this area to protect vulnerable individuals.

Background

To give some context, let us first review fiduciary relationships.

Where one person is in a position of power, influence or dominance over another and a legal dispute arises between them, our law will apply certain legal presumptions. Where such a relationship of trust or confidence exists between the parties, the law generally considers the parties to be in a fiduciary relationship. For example fiduciary relationships include caregivers and clients/patients, lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, to name a few.

In an ongoing fiduciary relationship, where the vulnerable party gratuitously transfers away an interest in property to the dominant party i.e. the fiduciary, then a presumption of undue influence arises. In other words, in any court challenge to such an inter vivos transfer, the law presumes that the recipient used undue influence in order to cause the vulnerable person to gift the property over.

In any legal proceedings involving an inter vivos gift therefore, the onus of proof will be on the recipient of the property, i.e. the dominant party or fiduciary.

Thus the fiduciary/recipient must satisfy the court that the transfer did not come about as a result of undue influence. The fiduciary/recipient will be required to prove that the transfer was an act of the free will of the transferor and that the fiduciary did not unduly influence the vulnerable party into making this transfer.

No Presumption of Undue Influence arises for Gifts by Will under the Existing Law

Paradoxically, this presumption does not apply in the case of wills. In other words, if the gift is not made inter vivos, but rather is a gift after death by means of a will, then no presumption of undue influence will arise.

Feeney in The Canadian Law of Wills, 3rd ed., Vol. 1 sets out this legal distinction at page 42:

“In the case of gifts inter vivos to persons standing in a fiduciary relationship, or some other relationship whereby the donee was in a position to overbear the donor, such persons must show that they did not influence the donor in making the gift. There is, so to speak, a presumption of undue influence. There is no such presumption in the case of wills. A person in a position to overbear a testator may exercise persuasion to obtain a will or legacy in his favour and it will stand in the absence of positive proof of undue influence by those who assert it.”

This anomalous legal treatment has historical roots in the distinct jurisdictions of the courts of Law and Equity. We suggest this distinction has no merit in modern times.

Indeed this anomaly leaves society’s vulnerable people wide open to manipulation and abuse by predators. This is especially so with elderly people, particularly those in need of care.

For example, suppose an elderly woman lives alone. Her long estranged son, the black sheep of the family, offers to move in to help care for her. He moves back into the family home and soon thereafter she signs a homemade will leaving him most of her estate and excluding her other children. As a caregiver, this son is in a position of trust yet no presumption of undue influence will arise. If she made this same transfer, effective during her lifetime, the presumption of undue influence would arise.

As the law presently stands, the disappointed beneficiaries challenging the will must affirmatively prove that the gift in the will was brought about by means of undue influence. Clearly this is very suspicious but yet how can the other children to prove what actually happened?

Like most types of abuse and deceitful activity, undue influence almost always occurs behind closed doors. Because it generally takes place in secret, in most cases undue influence is impossible to prove, especially now that the principal witness is now dead. This is precisely the reason a presumption of law is so important in such cases.

Just how difficult is it to prove undue influence?

To appreciate the difficulty of proving undue influence, one only has to examine the facts of the leading Canadian case Vout v. Hay (1995), 7 E.T.R. (2d) 209 [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876

This case involved Mr. Hay, who was murdered at 81 years of age. He lived alone on his farm and, three years before his death, he had made his will. It left small cash legacies to his brother, nephews and nieces and a farm to one nephew. This same will, however, left another farm and the $320,000 residue to Ms. Vout aged 24. She had been paid to help the deceased with chores on the farm and was friendly with him although there was apparently no “romantic involvement”. She was initially a suspect in the murder however another man eventually confessed to the crime.

Notably, no lawyer was involved either in the preparation or execution of the will. In fact a legal secretary testified that Ms. Vout had phoned for the wills appointment and had given her the purported wills instructions by phone. The secretary then prepared the will and Ms. Vout attended with Mr. Hay and remained present throughout his one appointment. He executed the will before two legal secretaries.

The legal secretary also testified that she had read the will over to Mr. Hay who, hesitated at one point and looked at Ms. Vout. Ms. Vout responded “Yes, that is what we discussed. That is what you decided” and he nodded to continue. Ms. Vout later instructed the secretary not to send the account to the farm and she came in later to pay the account herself.

Although the legal secretary had no apparent motive to lie nor any reason to be mistaken, Ms. Vout denied having played any role in relation to the wills instruction or being present for its execution. She did, however, admit to paying for its preparation. The trial judge made no findings as to which version he accepted. Witnesses at the trial described the testator as being eccentric but alert, smart, independent, determined and not easily influenced.

The trial judge found no undue influence and admitted the will to probate. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the burden of disproving undue influence was on Ms. Vout because of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will’s preparation and execution. They allowed the appeal

The Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the trial original judgment, ruling that even though there may be suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will, the burden of proof with respect to fraud and undue influence remains on those challenging the will.

From this decision, one can see just how difficult it is to establish undue influence, short of a full confession by the dominant party.

Major Financial Disincentives to Pursuing such Claims

Let us turn to the practical ramifications of this decision. Undue influence is an equitable doctrine which is a category of constructive fraud. Legitimate influence is separated from undue influence by a very fine line. Therefore, these cases turn on the peculiar circumstances in question. Any trial invariably involves a meticulous examination of the surrounding facts.

Pursuing such a claim is therefore very costly. It will involve many days of examinations for discovery and trial time. Even before reaching the courtroom, the disappointed beneficiaries must pay substantial expenses including fees for court reporters, medical expert reports and likely private investigators. They usually need expert help if there is any hope of piecing together what happened behind closed doors.

What is more, where disappointed beneficiaries fail to prove their undue influence claim, they are often severely penalized. The courts are increasingly awarding full indemnity for costs against parties who fail to prove such claims. Thus they must pay both their own costs and often special costs for the successful heirs. Special costs can easily be in excess of $150,000.

Needless to say, this is a huge disincentive to bringing such an action. In practical terms the stakes are simply too high for most disappointed beneficiaries to mount such a challenge.

Possible Beneficiaries of Undue Influence

As we have said, it is not simply grasping caregivers that stand to benefit from such wills.

In January 2008 the New York Times ran the most recent article in series about the lawyer for the late Brooke Astor. She died at 105 years and her lawyer has been charged criminally with helping Mrs. Astor’s son to exploit her financially during the last years of her life.

According to the Times this lawyer, in an arrangement with other lawyers who drew the wills, had previously received very large bequests from several very grateful rich clients. Under one will, for example, he received most of the $15 million estate. In another will, signed the day before he died, an 83 year old economist left Mr. Morrissey a Manhattan apartment and art collection. There were other examples given of the very large bequests left him by elderly clients.

We hate to contemplate this happening closer to home but the potential for abuse is certainly there. At present, B.C. lawyers are not required to disclose any inheritances from clients.

Protect Elders From Abuse

The present state of the law leaves vulnerable people, particularly elders, wide open to financial abuse in terms of their wills, particularly by their caregivers.

Anytime vulnerable people are being cared for by others, there is potential for abuse. We have seen this time and time again in the tales emerging about abuse in native residential school and other institutions. Undue influence is simply one more form of abuse of the more vulnerable. Such abuse, whether sexual or financial, never takes place openly.

One principal difference between child abuse and elder abuse, however, is that child victims may, sooner or later, disclose the abuse whereas elders often take their stories to the grave.

By the very nature of their disability, those in need of care are more likely to be isolated physically, socially and emotionally. Whether their caregiver is a family member or an unrelated person, they are sitting ducks for exploitation by anyone who pays attention to them. That exploitation can range from subtle manipulation, to coercion, to outright physical abuse.

In terms of elders in particular, they often have very little voice. Even should they complain, they may well not be believed. What is more, they will often put up with indignity to stay in their home, knowing that if they lose their caregiver they will likely be institutionalized. Not only will this mean losing their relative dignity and comfort. For many elders, institutionalization means death.

What would the Proposed Change Mean?

The value of changing the onus of proof in these cases is that it will shed light on bequests to those in a position of trust or influence. Clearly many of these bequests are bona fide however the potential for elder financial abuse is enormous as the law now stands.

Challenges by disappointed beneficiaries will usually arise only where there are suspicious circumstances, for example a homemade will, executed without legal advice, that contains a marked departure from the dispositions set out in previous wills.

Any presumption of undue influence is rebuttable by showing that the will was made after full, free and informed thought. This is most often done by showing that the testator obtained proper independent legal advice.

Changing the onus of proof will not mean that a testator cannot make provision for their caregiver or someone in a position of trust. Naturally a vulnerable testator should be able to change their will and make valid bequests. The greater scrutiny will simply help to ensure that he or she made truly wished to make that bequest and was not coerced into doing so.

It is fallacious to suggest that changing the presumption of undue influence will “open the floodgates of litigation”. As a practical matter smaller gifts to a fiduciary, whether in life or by will, are unlikely to be challenged.

Firstly there is nothing suspicious about a testator recognizing a fiduciary in a token way. It is only when a testator gives away significant gifts, without apparent justification, that suspicions become aroused.

Secondly, the high cost of litigation has a very strong dissuasive effect for most would be challengers. A court challenge will likely occur only where there are both suspicious circumstances and a sizeable amount at issue.

Similar reasoning applies with respect to gifts by will to a family member who is also in a position of trust, for example as a caregiver or as the holder of a power of attorney.

A change in the applicable presumption does not mean that a testator cannot make significant provision for that family member. It will mean simply is that where there is a challenge to the will, it will be incumbent on the beneficiary to offer evidence to rebut the presumption, for example by pointing to similar provisions under previous wills or pointing to the independent advice the testator received from a legal professional prior to executing the new will.

Changing the onus of proof thus will simply ensure that the dominant person or fiduciary, who most often has the greater knowledge of the circumstances, will now bear the burden of proof.

Conclusion

There is simply no valid policy reason to offer protection to vulnerable individuals in respect of inter vivos gifts and not in respect to their wills. The potential for financial abuse, especially elder abuse, is the same in both situations.

Our law ought to reflect that reality by changing the presumption of undue influence to ensure that any gift made represents the true will of the vulnerable donor, whether made inter vivos or after death.

If you agree with our position in this article, then we encourage you to write to the Attorney General and to let your Provincial MLA know of your concern.

Just For Laughs: Mom Always Loved You Best

"Mom Always Loved You Best" Bumper Sticker

The doors are decaled disinherited.com, but it is the back bumper stating “ Mom Always Loved You best” that gets noticed. Taken from the Smothers Brothers gag routine, many people have followed me home to take a photo of them standing with the car.Continue reading

Sibling Rivalry – Mom Always Loved YOU Best

mom loved you bestSibling rivalry is rife in estate litigation

and often comes to the fore with

the death of the parents—

particularly the last parent.

Although some fortunate siblings

may be the best of friends, that

situation is obviously rare in our

practices.

One of our favourite sibling stories

happened in the case of “Robert.” He

was the youngest child, born many

years after his four older siblings.

Robert and his mother “had been

very close” and when she died, he

ended up with her entire estate. The

That story serves as an allegory

for sibling rivalry. Seemingly minor

childhood conflicts can result in

underlying resentments that may last

a lifetime. Such resentments often

emerge during the emotional upheaval

following the death of parents.

Sibling rivalry exists among most

animal species where competition

begins at birth. The rivalry may be

extreme—take for example, the black

eagle who lays two eggs. Mother looks

on while the first hatchling pecks the

second to death.

Among humans, sibling rivalry dates

back to the Bible. The Book of Genesis

tells of the jealousy between Adam and

Eve’s sons Cain and Abel. When Cain

kills Abel, the first murder occurs. That

story has inspired much Western art and

literature over the centuries.

Sibling rivalry remains a common

theme in our culture and is found in

television shows from Leave It to Beaver

to Family Guy, from Friends to The

Smothers Brothers with Tommy’s

frequent refrain, “Mom always loved

you best.” Social media loves to report

on the “friendly” tennis competition

of Venus and Serena Williams.

Our clients often include those

who adopted traits that their parents

approved of, those who rebelled, and

those who simply withdrew from the

competition altogether. It seems many

of us grew up with internal labels

such as “I’m the smart one,” “I’m the

athletic one,” or “I’m the black sheep.”

disinherited siblings sued. At the

examinations for discovery, the siblings

were extremely hostile, glaring at

Robert. During questioning, Trevor

asked Robert’s older sister about her

obvious hatred toward her youngest

brother. He fully expected to hear

how Robert was selfish, greedy,

and dishonest. Instead, the sister

responded, “He was allowed to have

cheese sandwiches before bed and

we weren’t!” The others nodded in

agreement.

Sibling Rivalry:

Mom Always

Loved You Best

Seemingly minor childhood

conflicts can result

in underlying resentments

that may last a lifetime.

Wills & Estates

Trevor Todd

Judith Milliken, QC

©iStockphoto.com/Fertnig Photography

72 The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia V olume 22 N umber 3 Fall 2013

Unfortunately, it seems some

parents more or less openly favour

a preferred child. Others needlessly

criticize a less-favoured child. Such

treatment inevitably creates resentment

between and among the siblings.

Psychologists report that from age

18 months, siblings can understand

family rules and know how to comfort

and be kind to each other. By age 3,

children have a sophisticated

grasp of the social rules within the

household and know how to adapt

to circumstances within the family.

One school of thought suggests

that fighting among siblings may

actually increase in adolescence, with

early teens reaching the highest level

of competition.

Some say that sibling bullying and

abuse are largely underreported. Recent

studies have indicated that bullying

and aggressive behaviour by a sibling

can be just as damaging as bullying

by a classmate, neighbour, or peer.

Most disturbing in our practice are

the surprising number of female clients

who have apparently suffered sexual

abuse by a teenage brother, usually

a few years older. They include serious

sexual assaults leaving lasting scars.

The Role Played by Parents

While it is natural for siblings

to compete, parents can certainly have

a positive or a detrimental effect in

reducing the potential to cause great

damage. Starting early to reduce such

rivalry is key. It is beyond the scope

of this article to provide parenting

advice but there are many useful

self-help books available, for example

Siblings Without Rivalry by Adele Faber

and Elaine Mazlich.

By the time most clients reach

a lawyer’s office, the horse is out of the

barn. It often seems parents have

contributed to rivalry by encouraging

competition, snitching, teasing, or

displaying overt favouritism. We

also unfortunately see the results

of highly dysfunctional families where

a parent with a personality disorder

has deliberately played one sibling off

against the others for most of their lives.

Sibling rivalry is inherent in human

nature. Most of us grew up competing

for an equal share of limited family

For example, if one child has

a disability, it is important that the

memorandum accompanying the Will

explain that fact clearly. Such an

explanation will often be better received

if also delivered to the family in person,

while the parent is still alive.

Clarity is also extremely important.

Even matters such as funeral

arrangements can cause great conflict

between and among siblings after

death when emotions of grief can

easily turn to anger. Long-standing

resentments by siblings can manifest

in pettiness—basically the need

to control . . . to flex their muscles and

withhold control from others.

Minimizing the opportunity for

conflict is important. Clear, written

directions by the parent are often

persuasive, for example, directions

for any funeral or celebration of life,

clear directions as to who specifically

should receive which items of personal

property. In these days of ubiquitous

technology, for further clarification it

is easy to take photographs and attach

them to any list.

Thoughtful legal practitioners will

have many more practical suggestions

for addressing this age-old problem. s

Trevor Todd restricts his practice

to estate litigation and has practised

law for 38 years. He is a past President

of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC,

a past chair of the Wills and Trusts

(Vancouver) Subsection, and a past

president of the New Westminster Bar

association. He frequently lectures

to CLE, TLAB C, the BC Notaries, and

various law, business, or general

public sessions on estate law issues.

disinherited.com is 17 years old.

It has hundreds of blogs and articles

and currently over 5600 visitors per

month on average.

Judith Milliken, QC, hails from

Saskatchewan. She has practised law

in BC since 1976. A former commercial

lawyer then senior Crown Counsel, she

is a highly experienced litigator who

practises exclusively estate litigation,

Wills, and trusts with Stewart Aulinger,

Vancouver.

judithmilliken@telus.net

resources, whether that be parental

attention, time in the bathroom, or

a share of dessert.

Other complicating factors

include the so-called “blended family”

involving step-siblings Many cultures

also significantly favour males, which

can lead to “societal sibling rivalries”

between men and women.

Significant life issues such as

care giving for elderly parents or

unequal treatment in inheritances can

inflame old grievances and perceived

slights. Even making funeral

arrangements can bring out the worst

in the surviving children.

While siblings display an intense

need to share equally in their

inheritances, unfortunately some

parents continue to play favourites

until the end, leaving some children

much larger or lesser shares of the

estate. That usually causes incredible

bitterness and resentment. On a basic

level, survivors equate inheritance

with parental love and cannot bear

being loved less by a parent than their

siblings were loved.

Lesser shares also invite litigation

under British Columbia’s Wills Variation

Act for it defies the moral claims

of the children to share equally in their

parents’ estates.

The societal expectation that

children will receive equal shares was

recognized by Madame J. Daphne

Smith, now of the Court of Appeal, in

Ryan vs. Delahaye 2003 BCSC 1081.

In paragraph [67] she said, “In the

absence of express reasons for an

unequal distribution, contemporary

standards create a reasonable

expectation of children sharing equally

in a parent’s estate.”

Reducing Sibling Rivalry after Death

Parents are strongly encouraged

to divide their estates in equal shares

among their children. If there is

a compelling reason to do otherwise,

it is crucial for parents to address

their communications thoughtfully.

Parents are strongly

encouraged to divide their

estates in equal shares

among their children.

Volume 22 N umber 3 Fall 2013 The Scrivener 73

Why Families Fight Over Inheritances

Dysfunctional family roles

The reasons why families fight over inheritances is much more complicated than simply greed.

The book Blood and Money  by P. Mark Accettura is required reading for anyone involved in the business of estate disputes, or anyone going through one or about to do so.The book is both academic in its anecdotal “research” as well as entertaining. The author was in the estate planning and elder law area for 30 years and weaves 5 years of research into various aspects of everything ranging from psychology to gerontology to produce this interesting read. He observes and reflects the experiences of disinheroited.com, that a significant number of estate disputes involve parties who come from dysfunctional families, that often have shades of mental illnesses, or addictions or personality disorders of many kids, but often narcissistic personalities.  The author posits five basic reasons why families fight over inheritances  1. Humans are genetically disposed to conflict; 2. Our self is intertwined with the approval that an inheritance represents, especially if the deceased is a parent; 3. People are hard wired to look for exclusion, to the point of some finding it where it doesn’t exist; 4. The death of a loved one activates the death anxiety of the loved ones left behind; 5. A family member has a personality disorder that distorts and exacerbates the natural family tensions into legal battles. In the experience of disinherited.com, many of these dysfunctional families”hang together” while the parent(s) are alive, but after the death of both parents, the fight is on.

Aggressive Narcissism – There Is Only Win or Lose

Lance Armstrong

disinherited.com is indebted to the Atlantic magazine on this extraordinary article re aggressive personality disorder, that appears all too frequently in estate disputes.

Regrettably, it is not considered a factor in determining mental capacity, but is simply a “personality disorder”.

Aggressive Narcissism : Lance Armstrong

Given his persistent lying and bullying, his arrogance and apparent indifference to the feelings of others, and the pain he inflicted on so many people, it’s difficult to feel much compassion for Armstrong — to even care to understand why he behaves the way he does. But let’s try.
A lust for money, for fame, or for victory — these are the main motivations the world has assigned to Lance Armstrong following his revelations during the Oprah interview and his dubious mea culpa. Yet these explanations, though thoughtful and widely shared, don’t fully account for his propensity to lie, no matter what the cost to others who challenge him, in order to achieve victory and preserve his heroic self-image.

While “narcissistic personality disorder” has been floated in connection with Armstrong’s name, this diagnostic label is more often used to vilify social pariahs like Bernie Madoff or Anders Behring Breivik than to shed genuine light on the person’s psychology. Armstrong’s grandiose personality certainly fits the profile of a narcissist, but these days, that label is most often hurled as an insult, used to express hostility toward egomaniacs who think too highly of themselves. How exactly does that label help us understand his history of relentless and ruthless lying?

Ongoing lies, in public statements and under oath, helped sustain the central lie of his existence: I’m a winner, not a loser.
A deeper, psychological view of narcissism explains that Armstrong’s personality works as a defense mechanism to ward off unconscious feelings of shame, defect or inferiority. The “Lance Armstrong” who for so long was adored by the public embodied a carefully constructed lie meant to disprove these feelings of unworthiness. Ongoing lies, in public statements and under oath, helped sustain the central lie of his existence: I’m a winner, not a loser. Over the years, whenever someone has challenged those lies, he has responded with swift brutality to protect that perfect image and prevent the return of shame.

John Bradshaw shed needed light on a type of toxic shame largely produced by shaming messages from parents, educators and other important figures in a child’s life. Today, this is how most people conceive of shame. But the unconscious feelings of shame that plague those like Armstrong are of a different order, with roots in the soil of emotional trauma during the first few years after birth: chaotic family life, depressed or alcoholic mothers, absent fathers, physical or sexual abuse, etc. It arises from a conviction, felt at the core of one’s being, that something went very wrong in these early years. As a result, they feel themselves to be defective, abnormal, ugly or a “loser.” Many people are consciously aware of these feelings. The popular idea of an inferiority complex captures their experience.

For others, the shame remains unconscious, kept from awareness with characteristic defense mechanisms. Narcissism is the primary defense against shame, where the creation of an idealized false sense serves to disguise and conceal the damage. Because narcissists feel threatened or attacked by criticism (anything that challenges the central lie of their being), they will respond by blaming the other person, or taking refuge in contempt. They may become enraged and indignant; when pushed too hard, they may go on the attack. The threat to their sense of self feels so dangerous that they may want to annihilate the source of it.

Anyone familiar with the “reasoned decision” about Armstrong from the United States Anti-Doping Agency or David’s Walsh’s books L.A. Confidentiel and Seven Deadly Sins will recognize this description. Armstrong’s arrogance and contempt for others, the indignant effort to turn tables on his accusers, charging them with vindictiveness and envy, his brutal assault on their characters and his attempts to destroy their careers — it all describes the narcissist who feels that his ideal self-image is under siege.

Gauging from recent reactions to his interview with Oprah, it appears that a large part of the public is ready to consign Armstrong to the dustbin. In USA Today, Christine Brennan found Armstrong to be “even more unlikable than one might have imagined,” referring to him as a “cold blooded customer.” Over Twitter, television host Piers Morgan remarked, “What a sniveling, lying, cheating little wretch @lancearmstrong revealed himself to be tonight. I hope he now just disappears.” Follow the comment thread on any of the online articles that analyze the Armstrong-Oprah interview and you’ll feel the hatred.

While perhaps the most dramatic example, Armstrong’s career has followed the typical arc of celebrity worship: first we raise our heroes to the pedestal then pull them down, throwing them onto the trash heap. Once disillusionment sets in, idealization gives way to hatred and contempt. Given his persistent lying and bullying, his arrogance and indifference to the feelings of others, his ruthless drive to win, and the pain he inflicted on so many people, it’s difficult at this moment to feel much compassion for Armstrong, or even to muster any interest in understanding why he behaves the way he does.

 

Lance Gunderson’s mother was only 17 when he was born and his father abandoned them when the boy was two. The fact that Lance refers to his biological father as his “DNA donor” and refuses to this day to meet him suggests that this abandonment was both painful and traumatic. His mother’s second marriage a few years later didn’t last, and though Lance took his last name, he never bonded with his step-father. This is the kind of chaotic early childhood that instills a basic sense of shame and unworthiness. While divorce no longer carries the same stigma it once did, children who grow up in broken families, especially boys without a father to admire and emulate, are more vulnerable to a wide range of social problems and emotional difficulties.

When the narcissist feels his idealized self-image to be threatened, he may go on the attack to defend it.
Armstrong found a way to rise above his lot. In the account of his victory over cancer, It’s Not About the Bike, he says, “I had started with nothing. My mother was a secretary in Plano, Texas, but on my bike, I had become something. When other kids were swimming at the country club, I was biking for miles after school, because it way my chance.” Follow the train of thought, and you’ll see it’s about feeling as if you’re nothing rather than having nothing. Competitive sport gave Armstrong a way to escape the sense of being inferior to the “normal” children, the other boys and girls at that country club. Victory in competition made him feel he was a winner and not a loser.

The narcissist lives in a world populated by two classes of people, the winners and the losers. His constant aim in life is to prove he’s a winner and to triumph over the losers. In the competitive cycling world of Armstrong’s era, winning depended upon the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Right or wrong, you couldn’t win the Tour de France as a clean rider. The psychological need to win, to escape the painful sense of inner defect or inferiority (shame) over-powered all other considerations. In terms of his psychological needs, the morality of his actions was irrelevant, not even a consideration.

To win represents a triumphant victory over shame, while to lose is contemptible. In the victory speech he gave after his seventh Tour de France victory, you can hear the contempt in his voice: “For the people that don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the skeptics, I’m sorry for you, I’m sorry you can’t dream big. And I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.” He might as well have said, I feel sorry for you losers. It made no difference that this was in fact no miracle but rather a chemically-enhanced performance engineered by Dr. Michele Ferrari. The only thing that mattered was victory.

The narcissist craves admiration, of course. It serves as an antidote to the unconscious feelings of shame and unworthiness. Millions of adoring fans fed Armstrong’s need to believe that he was someone very special. Even more than a winner, he was becoming a hero to millions of people around the world: cancer survivor, humanitarian, a model of bravery and perseverance. They praised and idealized him. Armstrong carefully cultivated this image. His philanthropy has no doubt done genuine good, but in light of the recent revelations, you have to wonder how much the charity aspect mattered, and how much he relied upon LiveStrong to bolster his public image and further the winning narrative.

When the narcissist feels his idealized self-image to be threatened, he may go on the attack to defend it. Hundreds of women have responded to the post on my Web site about The Vindictive Narcissist, sharing their stories of ex-husbands who devoted great amounts of energy and money, often involving protracted legal action, to destroy the reputations of former wives who left them. Revelations from the USADA’s reasoned decision, along with the accounts of former friends and teammates who were threatened, sued and driven from the sport by Armstrong tell a similar story. The narcissist experiences a challenge to his or her self-image as a vicious attack and will respond in kind.

Armstrong vilified masseuse Emma O’Reilly for telling the truth about doping on the U.S. Postal Team, calling her an “alcoholic whore.” After former Tour de France winner Greg LeMond publicly expressed concern about Armstrong’s association with Ferrari, Armstrong threatened to find ten people who would testify that LeMond had used PEDs unless he apologized for his remarks. According to LeMond’s wife, Armstrong also offered a $300,000 bribe to one of her husband’s former teammates if he would claim that he had seen LeMond use the oxygen-boosting drug EPO.

When Betsy Andreu cooperated with David Walsh on his first book, revealing that Armstrong had admitted using PEDs to his oncologist, he sued her for libel. He has called her a “crazy bitch.” He threatened to “destroy” Filippo Simeoni for cooperating with anti-doping officials. After Tyler Hamilton released his book about doping in the world of professional cycling and began to cooperate with law enforcement, Armstrong accosted him in an Aspen restaurant: “When you’re on the witness stand, we are going to fucking tear you apart. You are going to look like a fucking idiot. I’m going to make your life a living … fucking hell.”

During the Oprah-Armstrong interview, he characterized such behavior as “controlling the message,” going on the attack to protect his territory, but there is no better way to describe it than vindictive and vengeful. One of the well-known features of the narcissist is a lack of empathy for the feelings of others. Despite his on-air apologies, Armstrong seems to feel no real remorse for the hurt he inflicted on his friends and teammates. He has called himself a jerk and an arrogant prick, but he doesn’t seem able to understand how much pain he has caused, to imagine what it would feel like to be Emma O’Reilly or Betsy Andreu, scorned in public by a powerful public figure, a hero to millions. The only thing that mattered was to destroy them.

LOSING FAITH IN SPORTS?
Armstrong still hasn’t acknowledged the truth of Betsy Andreu’s claim that she heard him admit using PEDs to his oncologist; he continues to insist that he had stopped doping when he returned to the Tour in 2009 and finished third. The man is engaged in damage control, saying whatever he believes necessary to retrieve some part of his public image and the chance to compete again one day. He wants to salvage a portion of the Armstrong myth, his idealized false self, and then begin to rebuild it.

If he’s going to learn and genuinely recover from this experience, Armstrong needs to feel authentic guilt for the hurt he inflicted on so many people. He needs to feel their pain, as Bill Clinton used to say, but in order to do so, he’ll have to feel his own: get in touch with that boy who felt like a nothing, face the shame that has fueled his drive to win and finally bring himself to sit down at the same table with the rest of us losers.

Like an alcoholic still in denial, he may need to “hit bottom” and lose everything before he can begin.

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/aggressive-narcissism-there-only-win-or-lose#sthash.w8bVYka7.dpuf

Dysfunctional Families and Narcissistic Parents

Free Yourself From Narcissistic Parenting

I frequently encounter the disinherited victims of a deceased parent, and after a few minutes of questioning, it is easy for me to determine that the deceased likely suffered from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and the victim of narcissistic parenting.

 

A present client who has endured a great deal of suffering all her life due to narcissistic parenting, in this case, her uncaring father, forwarded me some passages about how to deal with this painful issue.

I am reproducing them today in the blog as I believe there is a good deal of need for this information.

I basically told my client to get over her father as he was one of the most self centred people I had ever heard about in 38 years of practicing law, and not worthy of her stress, depression and lost love.

 

Narcissistic Parenting: Take Back Your Life from Your Narcissistic Father

Narcissists cast dark shadows over our lives, especially when we are very young. Deep inside, instinctively,  we know that we must survive. Many of us go along not only to get along but to stay alive psychologically. Some young children in highly disturbed narcissistic families become hyper-vigilant – always surveying their environments for danger, threats, visceral feelings of being completely unsafe. Other children are less aware of the dynamics in the family on a conscious level. They distract themselves with activity, telling themselves that everything is all right. In our earliest years our minds normalize what we are experiencing. It is the rare person who as a small child knew that there was something fundamentally wrong, unjust, and highly disturbed about one or both of our parents.

Narcissistic fathers cannot parent. They are emotionally unavailable to their children. They go through the motions of interacting with them. They may give greater attention to a child whom they perceive will become a star, a standout in the family – this is another narcissistic supply for the father. He doesn’t care about the individuality of this son or daughter. He sees potential in them that can be nurtured and eventually will reflect  his greatness.The kids who don’t make the cut–the ones who are less attractive, (Blind / Deaf – CDD), highly sensitive, not socially skilled—-are set aside for neglect and constant ridicule. To the narcissistic father you are either his possession or you don’t exist. This man constantly appraises the value of his children to him. He sets unapproachable goals. Everyone must be at the top of the class or else. These fathers will take a son who has athletic capability and make them work out to the point of exhaustion and injury to fulfill their dream of having a son who is a professional athlete. Andre Agassi, the great tennis champion talks about his cruel narcissistic father’s forcing him from early childhood to practice hour after hour without let up. He didn’t care that his son hated tennis. Father prevailed. And yes, Agassi became a great champion but at a great price–years of abuse and agony.

There is an accumulation of truth about your narcissistic father. Some of his children recognize early that they are being used to prop up their father’s ego supplies and his grandiose self vision. Others identify with the father and spend their lives as his living servants. Those who wake up to the truth that the father is a merciless narcissist, sever this toxic relationship and begin the healing process of fulfilling their birthright of becoming a free separate individual. Some turn to professional psychotherapy and grieve for the real father they never had. There are other healing paths–meditation, hatha yoga, journaling, the forming of meaningful close relationships with individuals who care deeply about the real you. Those who go through this passage discover that they are finally free to lead their lives on their terms. They thrive, discover creative gifts that have been left dormant and gain confidence and inner peace by embracing their real selves.

Visit website: thenarcissistinyourlife.com
Linda Martinez-Lewi, Ph.D.
Book: Freeing Yourself from the Narcissist in Your Life
Email: lmlphd@thenarcissistinyourlife

 

Narcissistic Parenting Sabotages Children

By definition sabotage is a “treacherous action.” Treachery when perpetrated upon a family member means destruction and annihilation. It is beyond ruthlessness.

Growing up in a family that exhibits narcissistic parenting is like being in the middle of a deadly fire fight twenty four hours a day. The child who survives these skirmishes and all out wars is truly remarkable. I hear and read life stories of those who found survival techniques. Many of them hide in their own shoes, spent time with friends to keep out of the war zone, slipped their minds away into books, video games, drawing, writing, other creative activities. Some children were fortunate to have a grandparent who would give them times of respite.

Some children who have this experience are in a constant state of anxiety – fight or flight syndrome. The narcissist – mother or father or both rule the household. Screams and demands–slaps and threats can be heard and experienced frequently in these homes. The narcissist lives for himself (herself) alone. Narcissists don’t love their children. They use them to prop up their egos if they perceive that a particular child can add to their perfect image. In this case the child is indulged. The rest of the kids are cast aside and neglected or treated abysmally. Some of these children find ingenious ways to save their sense of self, to conceal their creative gifts but continue to use them and to keep the inner fire of a sense of self burning brightly. I have known individuals who have been able to accomplish this despite all of the narcissistic pathology of their mother or father or both parents.

Adult children continue to heal through skilled psychotherapy and many forms of bringing the body/mind back into balance: gentle yoga, meditation, support groups, full use of your creativity. You can heal. You will heal.

 

Everyone is Disposable, Even the Spouse and Children

Narcissists are incapable of sincere feelings and deep relationships. They are brilliant actors. You make believe, even if you have been married to a narcissist for a number of years, that this person loves you. The narcissist in incapable of loving anyone. This is not part of his psyche. He/she views human relationships as stepping stones that will enhance their image socially and professionally, impress the right people.(Bernice). They are vehicles that smooth their way toward goals they have been fixated most of their lives. Absolutely no one, not even their spouses or children is permitted to create obstacles as they climb professionally, creating greater influence and connecting with the right people. When push comes to shove the narcissist is compelled due his dark motivations to manipulate and exploit those closest to them. Narcissists often substitute one family for another. It isn’t unusual for them to start with a beginning family. When they discover that their spouse and children are not capable of heightening their prestige and power reach, they abandon entire families. They have absolutely no guilt about these cruel, psychologically devastating decisions and their painful consequences.

Narcissists shift quickly to the next phase of their climb toward their targeted summit by seeking a second marriage that will bring them the connections and access to which they are entitled. This time they make sure that the new spouse has any number of a combination of qualifications. She could be a prominent medical specialist who is part of an auspicious social circle. Marrying into a prominent well established family is a tried and true route. Once accepted by this new family the narcissist digs in to eventually control its key members To solidify the union, they often have children with the new spouse to become indispensable to their newly created nuclear family and extended families.

The previous spouse and children have long been forgotten. The narcissist acts as if they never existed. Often he refuses to provide alimony and child support and uses the manipulations of the court system to avoid his legal and moral obligations. The narcissist views all of this like an annoyance, something he uses his handpicked attorneys to distance himself from the past. For the narcissist it doesn’t exist.

Narcissists are ultimate opportunists and exploiters so it isn’t surprising that some of them jump from one relationship or marriage to another, always looking for the fulfillment of their grandiose visions.

To learn about the narcissistic personality in-depth and to protect yourself from his/her tactics, study this fixed personality disorder which does not change. You deserve to be a part of genuine loving relationships built on trust, deep love and respect.

Further reading on Narcissistic Parenting

Cutting Ties with the Family and Estrangement

How to Survive a Narcissistic or Abusive Family

Aggressive Narcissism – There is Only Win or Lose

Mom Always Liked You Best

mom likes you best

It still cracks me up to visualize the cover of 1965 Smothers Brothers 8th comedy album ” Mom Always Liked You Best.”

The cover photograph shows Dick surrounded by a dog, a wagon, a scooter and many other toys while Tom is sitting there with just his chicken.

disinherited.com has a vehicle with this expression on the trunk, only changed to “Mom Always Loved You Best” just to inflame the sibling rivalry situation a bit more. It invariably is noticed by many a driver behind  observed laughing  in the mirror.

It is a universal human need to seek parental approval and love -lasting even to some’s death beds, with many more making it into an estate litigators office after the last parent passes away.

Sibling rivalry can be an enormous factor on ones emotional health and happiness in life, let alone bitter rivals in estate disputes over the parents assets.

On some subliminal level, parental assets equate to parental love, and siblings typically hate to see one get more than the other.

Studies show that  children are sensitive from the age of one year to differences in parental treatment.

From 18 months on siblings can understand family rules and know how to comfort and be kind to each other.

By 3 years years old, children have a sophisticated grasp of social rules, can evaluate themselves in relation to their siblings, and know how to adapt to circumstances within the family.

The problem occurs when the rivalry often continues not just throughout childhood , but into adulthood .

Sibling relationships can change dramatically for better or worse  over the years.

While events such as a parent’s illness may bring siblings closer together, a  marriage may drive them apart, particularly if the in-law relationship is strained.

Approximately one-third of adults describe their relationship with siblings as rivalrous or distant.

However, rivalry often lessens over time with  80 percent of siblings over age 60 reporting they  enjoy close ties.

BC Estate Lawyer- Narcissistic Personality Disorders

Narcissitic Personality

Trevor Todd and Jackson Todd have over sixty years combined experience in handling contested estates, which often involve narcissi tic parents..

Repeated With The Permission of Peter Bloch  From His Blog response to our blog entitled “Personality Disorders In Estate Litigation”

“I found this article very interesting and also very much in line with my own experience working with people who involved in serious family disputes (sometimes, but not always related to inheritances).
The first of Accettura’s reasons is, in my experience, quite rightly stated first. It is, in the case of serious disputes, by far the most commonly present and by a long way the most intractable. People with personality disorders, itself a major psychiatric diagnosis, are often unwilling or unable to negotiate on a basis that to other people would seem “reasonable”.

Those with the so-called “cluster B” disorders are usually the least able to alter their positions and those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are given to words and deeds that can astonish in their cruelty.

This last personality disorder, the narcissistic, is remarkably common, some believe more than 2% of the population would be diagnosed with it (people with the disorder will rarely submit themselves for diagnosis because they appear to suffer much less than their victims) and they are disproportionately, although by no means exclusively, male. It particularly lends itself to disputes about inheritances for several reasons.

Firstly, people with the disorder are frequently addicted to fantasies of unlimited success (in fact, it is one of the major diagnostic criteria) and more money can seem disproportionately important to them, even if they are already wealthy.

Secondly, people with the disorder are “devoid of empathy” (another diagnostic criteria) and so can be ruthless in pursuing their goals, whatever the human cost.

Thirdly, people with the disorder feel much superior to other people (part of the definition of “narcissism”) and have a sense of superior entitlement – why should the “little people” have things that they want?

Fourthly, people with the disorder have a great many stored up grievances against other people, particularly family members who may insist upon seeing them as they are and not as they would like to be seen (a particular narcissistic characteristic), and people with the disorder will not want to pass up an opportunity to get revenge for slights, real or perceived.
If you’ve made it through this little primer, you will understand why a disproportionate number of serious and intractable disputes over inheritances involve personality disorder.
This is a link here to a Wikipedia article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder and this is a link to a short article that I’ve posted about the modern trend towards narcissism in society http://blochhealing.co.uk/narcissism-and-society.

I hope you’ll post this comment – I’ve taken some trouble! If you do, I’ll return later to make a few suggestions about how best to deal with these problems as family member or as legal representative.”
Submitted by Peter Bloch (not verified) on Sat, 05/19/2012 – 2:32am.

Mom Always Loved You Best

Mom Always Loved YOU Best is an expression that many boomers grew up with.

 

The Smothers Brothers said it every show.

 

Trevor Todd of disinherited.com has a sticker with the expression on the back of his Smart car, and frequently notices other driver’s snicker as they pull up behind and read it.

 

It was with great delight that I read in the Globe and Mail on or about March 22.12 a wonderful article entitled none other than ” MOM ALWAYS LOVED YOU BEST”

I was unable to reproduce the article in its entirety but here are some of the salient features:

1. Adult sibling rivalry remains one of the most harmful and least addressed issues in the family – we all know it when we see it but very few have an idea what to do about it let alone understand it;
2. Sibling rivalry is a normal aspect of childhood -our siblings are our very first rivals who compete with us for love and attention as well as food, toys and jsut about everything else;
3. Sibling relationships are often the longest in our lives– research shows that up to 45% of adults have a rivalrous or distant relationship with a sibling;

4. People questioned late in life often say one of their biggest regrets is being estranged from a sibling;

5. The rivalry often persists into adult hood because it is never dealt with in childhood, while issues with parents often have been;

6. Whereas many adults have been through years of therapy and worked out a lot of guilt and other issues with their parents, when it comes to their siblings, they often can’t even articulate what exactly the problem is

 

Sound familiar?

 

I might add that it is great for business.

– See more at: http://www.disinherited.com/blog/mom-always-loved-you-best#sthash.mqaqmUxH.dpuf