Animal Rights Groups Object to Trustees' Distribution of Leona Helmsley's Charitable Trust

Posted on September 3, 2009 by Hull and Hull LLP

The Leona Hemsley's estate saga continues.

Last month, three animal protection groups filed a petition requesting that the court appeal a previous decision that allowed the trustees of Helmsley’s estate sole discretion to determine how charitable trust funds would be distributed. Rick Bickhram’s previous blog provides a background to this decision.

The animal rights groups allege that Helmsley’s money is not being spent the way she intended and contrary to her expressed intentions to care for the welfare of dogs. The groups object that only $1 million of the $136 million paid out to charitable organizations this year went to organizations that assist with animal welfare. A New York Times article outlines some of the hurdles the animal rights groups face. We will see how this new development plays out.

Of course, Helmsley’s Will caught the media’s attention because she left $12 million to her Maltese, Trouble. Yet, Trouble’s fortune seems small compared to Gunter III, a German Shepherd who was left $80 million by Karlotta Liebenstein, an Austrian countess. If you think that’s unusual, this blog post outlines these two dogs’ fortunes and some additional “interesting” Will bequests. Estate law is almost never boring.

Thanks for reading,

Diane Vieira 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Planners for Pets

Posted on June 27, 2008 by Hull and Hull LLP

I recall a good deal of discussion when Leona Helmsley left millions to be held in trust in her Will last year, some of it on the Hull & Hull blogs and podcasts.

Well, the website for Estate Planning for Pets provides some interesting reading in this vein, although the kind of trust established by Ms. Helmsley is obviously rare.  My own eye was drawn to the “for skeptics” section, which admonished professionals to put their clients’ wishes first, not their own priorities.

The point seems to be that rather than focus on one’s own, subjective opinion that money to pets could be used for other purposes, it is more appropriate to consider what happens to the pet if the testator makes no provision.  Absent provision, the pet could end up abused, ignored or euthanized.  Anyone who has lost a beloved pet can probably understand why testators want to soften the blow to a pet who loses them.  

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham

Tags: , , , ,