Feature
- Where Do You Stand on the NYC Mosque?
- One of Our Favorite Topics: Oral Sex!
- Do We Need to Be More 'Sensitive' to Infertility?
- Who's the Tool -- Bill O'Reilly or Jennifer Aniston?
- True Blood: Not Your Mother's Vampire Story
- Craiglist: Should Their Sex Services Be Discontinued?
- Cutting Foodstamps For Needy Families: Good Idea?
- Female Sex Offenders: More Common Than You Think
- Is the Scott Pilgrim Movie Really Worth Seeing?
- Female Facial Hair: For or Against?
On Tuesday, it was announced that trustees of Leona Helmsley’s charitable trust have made the first distribution from the $5 billion estate, in the amount of $136 milllion. One million of the $136 million has been given to dog charities, while the remainder has been earmarked for human charities. The uneven awards have left some people mad — barking mad.
Recall that following the “Queen of Mean”’s death in August 2007, the bombshell contents of her will were made public: she left $12 million to her (allegedly) nasty Maltese, Trouble, and cut out two of her grandchildren. The remainder of her estate she left in a charitable trust “for purposes related to the provision of care for dogs and such other such charitable activities as the trustees shall determine.”
Not surprisingly, The Human Society has a bone to pick about the 99:1 human to dog charity split. Given Helmsley’s generosity toward Trouble and her express mention of dog charities in her trust directives, The Humane Society contends that by giving a trifling amount to the dogs (the $1 million is being split among at least ten dog charities) the trustees of the estate are trying to subvert Helmsley’s intentions.
Think what you want about how Leona Helmsley decided to spend her money, but The Humane Society has a point. By all accounts, Helmsley was devoted to Trouble, who shared the real estate magnate’s double king size bed. Trouble was always by Helmsley’s side, and will be so even after death; when Trouble dies, she is to be buried next to Helmsley in a mausoleum. Despite all this, a judge reduced the $12 million that Helmsley left to Trouble to $2 million, and now the billion dollar trust, which singles out dog charities as particularly deserving, is being distributed in a way which contravenes Helmsley’s wishes. In fact, a judge has authorized that the two grandchildren which Helmsley expressly cut out of her will receive a combined $6 million. If people can’t direct the way they want their money to be spent following their death, what’s the point in drawing up a will at all?
You may think that Helmsley was a bat-shit crazy dog lady. She may very well have been one [Ed: Nothing wrong with that!], but it’s really nobody’s business how people chose to spend their money, alive or dead. The clear intent of Helmsley’s will and estate was to reward the creatures who loved her unconditionally as she came to the end of her life. It’s not hard to imagine that a woman who was hated by nearly everyone, including her own family, might not want to reward the human race for vilifying her in the press during her lifetime. I remember watching the 1990 made for tv special, Leona Helmsley: The Queen of Mean, and her portrayal wasn’t exactly flattering. If I were her, I’d be pissed at humanity, too. Hopefully the public outcry from dog charities will be enough to right the wrongs of this last distribution.
It is up to the judges and trustees to honor the wishes of the decedent, and it is not their province to spend the decedent’s money according to their own whims and tastes. The treatment of the Helmsley estate thus far is a classic but unfortunate example of judicial overreaching and reminder that try as they might, the dead don’t really have control over their money.
-
-
21
Honestly, I think it would be criminal to waste so much money on dogs when there are humans suffering just as much.
I totally disagree. If she wants her money to go towards dog/animal charities then they should go toward those charities.
tell that to the millions of dogs across the country suffering from neglect and abuse. human suffering IS horrible…but i volunteer at the Los Angeles SPCA
and I have seen first hand dogs that have been beaten starved, stabbed, burned, dragged behind cars tied to ropes..abandoned to die in the heat, in garbage bags on the side of the highway..
Sorry to be so dramatic but every dime that comes through donations to either the SPCA or the Humane Society is greatly needed…
I am totally sympathetic to the plight of animals, it breaks my heart to see any living thing suffer like what you’ve described, but given the choice I think a human life is far more precious than any number of animals.
I’m sorry if that offends animal lovers and PETA, but it’s my belief.
I agree, but from her point of view people did not treat her nicely, animals did and she just wanted to give back to those who treated her well and loved her back. I love my animals and would want to make sure they were taken care of after I passed. It’s not like I have millions to give to my pet like she does so its on a different scale, but I would feel sad knowing that they would be left without someone to take care of them since they are more helpless than humans.
How is giving all that cash to her already wealthy relatives going to help human suffering? At least someone benefits from it going to animal charities.
“One million of the $136 million has been given to dog charities, while the remainder has been earmarked for human charities.”
Ah, I see. Whoops! My mistake.
What in the heck is a dog going to do with 2 million anyway that is so ridiculous!! Let’s see i’ll spend 1 million on new chew toys…
I think the amount her dog is getting will be enough for it to live a happy life while she is gone, so I am okay with its amount being reduced, but why cut down the charities? Who cares that it was going to animal charities? It’s not our business. Plus, if her family didn’t get along with her and didn’t help her in her old age why should they get any money? Just because you are blood related doesn’t give you the right. It is one thing to over turn the wishes of a will if that will was made up when the person was not in a fit state to make those decisions, but if she consciously made the decision to leave her money to animals and not the people who turned their backs on her, I think that is wrong and they should follow the will according to her wishes.
I agree!
It was her money. She should get to with it as she pleases – what judge has the right to overturn her wishes?
yeah I don’t care. Fuck her. She was the one that sued her dead son’s estate, saying that he borrowed money from her, basically leaving his widow penniless.
And she was left a shitload of money when her husband died. Whatever. And I’ve heard she didn’t leave those grandchildren money cuz they didn’t name their kids after her dead husband. She is a crazy bitch. You aren’t called “the queen of mean” for nothing.
And the trust gets to decide where the charity money goes anyway. If they want to donate it to other charities, it is in their right. If she wasn’t so crazy, she could have donated a lot of it before she passed.
Total corruption in the courts! I imagine some of the relatives offered a judge a cut of the inheritance if they ruled in their favor.
I think it’s totally ridiculous. No matter how you feel about that much money going to dog charities, it doesn’t matter. It was stated in the will as such, and therefore the money should be spent accordingly. How is this ruling even legal at all? I don’t see any difference between the judge deciding the grandchildren should get cash from the estate, and deciding some homeless guy down the street should get it. Neither of them were in the will.
With that kind of cash, stray animals could be a thing of the past. Not just in the USA, but everywhere.
It’s her money, and she should be able to have it spent however she likes, dead or alive.
“With that kind of cash, stray animals could be a thing of the past. Not just in the USA, but everywhere.”
How so?
Because it’s an incredible amount of money! Maybe stray animals couldn’t be a thing of the past EVERYWHERE in the world, but you could certainly curb down on a huge amount of strays, and even be able to implement more no-kill policies at shelters.
I don’t think that simply housing strays in new buildings would solve anything. People will just keep not spaying/neutering their pets, creating a whole new legion of strays. Having places for these poor animals to go does nothing to help the real problem.
I understand what you mean. I just think human charities are just… more worth it. And even in her will it said ““for purposes related to the provision of care for dogs and such other such charitable activities as the trustees shall determine.””
If she wanted it all to go to animals, she really should have been far more specific about it.
And, from your initial comment, a lot of it wasn’t really “her” money. It was “family” money. That’s probably why a judge would see fit to pass it down through her family. It is not like she earned every dollar of her money. She inherited a ton too, and was using her will to punish.
And she was crazaaaay
You wouldn’t just have to house all strays. You can also put money into promoting neutering, and possibly even subsidizing neutering procedures for those who can’t afford them. There are a lot of things you could do for animals with that kind of money besides hoard them all into shelters.
But still, regardless of whether or not human charities or animal charities are worth it, I still don’t understand why the specifics of the will were not honoured. Family/inherited money or not, it was money that was legally hers (that she would’ve legally inherited to her specifically) that she had specific requests for. Whether or not 136 million dollars to animal oriented charities is ridiculous, whether or not she was a huuuge bitch, she still wrote up a legal contract to have her assets used in a particular way which was blatantly ignored. I think it’s total judicial corruption.
What’s the point of even making a will if a judge can decided the way you’ve appointed your money is “silly”?
just one last time. “she left in a charitable trust “for purposes related to the provision of care for dogs and such other such charitable activities as the trustees shall determine.””
She should have said in her will that she wanted ALL of the money to ONLY go to dog charities. She left way too much gray area by adding “and other such charitable activities as the trustees shall determine.” The trustees did nothing wrong. They decided where they thought the money would be best used.
’subsidizing neutering procedures for those who can’t afford them. ‘– that’s a pretty great idea.
You can see letter from her and one from her secretary to me on my website. She liked my “Ode to the Revenue Code.” I do not believe that she should not have gone to prison. She paid 32 Million in taxes and the government got 1 1/2 million more through the courts. That is less than 5%. They normally do not go after someone unless 25% is involved. A person who has 5 billion could not have to “intent” that was required to make this a criminal case. If she closed her hotels while in prison the government whould lose the 32 million, it would also lose another 32 million because losses can be carried back and forward. The government would also have had to pay 4 thousand people unemployment insurance.
I did not intend to use two negatives in my message. It should have read: “I do not believe that she should have gone to prison.”