Hey, remember Trouble, the snippy little dog that causes a big stir because hotel and real estate queen Leona Helmsley (may she rest in peace) left a sizable portion of her zillions not only to the little white dog (whereabouts unknown) but to 'dogs' in general?
Quick recap: The self-described "Queen of Mean" left a substantial amount of her fortune (I don't remember precisely now, could have actually been 1 billion or even 5 billion) "to the welfare of dogs" (okay, not a direct quote, but it was about as nebulous.) Since then, her heirs (whom she didn't particularly seem to like) have been like, well, maybe we'll give some to the dogs, but not all of it.
As you can imagine, as soon as it was revealed how much money she left 'to the dogs" there was an immediate money-grab by a variety of animal welfare groups, large and small, who were already measuring the drapes for the new wings to their shelters with the money Ms. Helmsley left for the doggies; it was almost comical to see, really.
So here we are a few years later, still no cookies in the dog cookie jar, and apparently, three major humane associations are forcing the Helmsley hand: Check out the press release I just got. Interesting also is the timing they send these things out--I got this late Monday evening, and the press conference is Tuesday at 11am. This means either they're not expecting (or even wanting) a lot of media coverage or I'm just on the 'B' list of media outlets. I bet they'll get a sizable amount of coverage, however. Sadly, the big news in New York has been the helicopter/plane crash over the Hudson but that's winding down now, and in late August the news days get very, very slow. Take a look:
LANDMARK HELMSLEY LEGAL TRUST CHALLENGE BY AMERICA’S THREE PRE-EMINENT ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS
Three of the country’s most prominent animal welfare organizations – HSUS, ASPCA, and Maddie’s Fund – charge that the Trustees of the Helmsley estate are misdirecting funds despite clear direction from late heiress to help dogs.
In what they are terming the most significant financial litigation in animal welfare history, this coalition of animal welfare organizations just filed suit in New York’s Surrogate Court to intervene in the matter of Leona Helmsley’s $5 billion estate.
WHO: Marsha Perelman, Chair, Board of Directors, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
Rich Avanzino, President, Maddie’s Fund
Legal team
Charles Berry, Arnold & Porter
Henry Christensen, McDermott, Will & Emery
WHEN: Tuesday, August 11, 2009
11:00 AM
WHERE: ASPCA Headquarters
424 E. 92nd StNew York, NY 10128
They even provided a call-in number for the media who can't attend.
I've actually been meaning to follow up on this, so they read my mind.
Here's my thought--no matter what you thought or felt about the woman, personally, she has a right to make her will and dispense with her money as she saw fit. If she wanted to give all of it 'to the dogs' then that was her choice. Bitchy, yes, especially when you have living heirs. But who knows, not all of us love our families (let's be honest.) But wrong? Legally, I don't think so. And I think this has the potential to be a precedent-setting case because more and more people are providing for their pets in their wills. There are also people who bequeath their money to various charities as well. Just because it happens to be to dogs, cats, or sea slugs doesn't mean their wishes are any less valid.
Well, let's see what happens. Should be interesting.
Quick recap: The self-described "Queen of Mean" left a substantial amount of her fortune (I don't remember precisely now, could have actually been 1 billion or even 5 billion) "to the welfare of dogs" (okay, not a direct quote, but it was about as nebulous.) Since then, her heirs (whom she didn't particularly seem to like) have been like, well, maybe we'll give some to the dogs, but not all of it.
As you can imagine, as soon as it was revealed how much money she left 'to the dogs" there was an immediate money-grab by a variety of animal welfare groups, large and small, who were already measuring the drapes for the new wings to their shelters with the money Ms. Helmsley left for the doggies; it was almost comical to see, really.
So here we are a few years later, still no cookies in the dog cookie jar, and apparently, three major humane associations are forcing the Helmsley hand: Check out the press release I just got. Interesting also is the timing they send these things out--I got this late Monday evening, and the press conference is Tuesday at 11am. This means either they're not expecting (or even wanting) a lot of media coverage or I'm just on the 'B' list of media outlets. I bet they'll get a sizable amount of coverage, however. Sadly, the big news in New York has been the helicopter/plane crash over the Hudson but that's winding down now, and in late August the news days get very, very slow. Take a look:
LANDMARK HELMSLEY LEGAL TRUST CHALLENGE BY AMERICA’S THREE PRE-EMINENT ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS
Three of the country’s most prominent animal welfare organizations – HSUS, ASPCA, and Maddie’s Fund – charge that the Trustees of the Helmsley estate are misdirecting funds despite clear direction from late heiress to help dogs.
In what they are terming the most significant financial litigation in animal welfare history, this coalition of animal welfare organizations just filed suit in New York’s Surrogate Court to intervene in the matter of Leona Helmsley’s $5 billion estate.
WHO: Marsha Perelman, Chair, Board of Directors, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
Rich Avanzino, President, Maddie’s Fund
Legal team
Charles Berry, Arnold & Porter
Henry Christensen, McDermott, Will & Emery
WHEN: Tuesday, August 11, 2009
11:00 AM
WHERE: ASPCA Headquarters
424 E. 92nd StNew York, NY 10128
They even provided a call-in number for the media who can't attend.
I've actually been meaning to follow up on this, so they read my mind.
Here's my thought--no matter what you thought or felt about the woman, personally, she has a right to make her will and dispense with her money as she saw fit. If she wanted to give all of it 'to the dogs' then that was her choice. Bitchy, yes, especially when you have living heirs. But who knows, not all of us love our families (let's be honest.) But wrong? Legally, I don't think so. And I think this has the potential to be a precedent-setting case because more and more people are providing for their pets in their wills. There are also people who bequeath their money to various charities as well. Just because it happens to be to dogs, cats, or sea slugs doesn't mean their wishes are any less valid.
Well, let's see what happens. Should be interesting.
0 comments:
Post a Comment