Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Two years after Leona Helmsley's death, a battle continues over her multi-billion dollar trust. Her will stated that the entire trust—over $5 billion— be used toward the care and welfare of dogs, but earlier this year, a judge allowed trustees distribute the money amongst a number of charities. Now, the ASPCA, Maddie's Fund and the Humane Society have filed a suit to make trustees follow Helmsley's wishes to help dogs.
The groups believe that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, per a press release, "failed in his charge to protect [the interests]" of "any heir or heiress." Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, said, "Mrs. Helmsley’s Trust Agreement and Mission Statement were clear: Help dogs. And the trustees have not done this, and instead pursued their own agendas with Mrs. Helmsley’s money. Every person with a will or estate, and every charity that relies on bequest income, should be profoundly concerned about this misdirection of funds."
The groups point out that the $5 billion could be a "game changer" in "changing injustices in dog care and welfare"—in fact, out of the $136 million distributed by Helmsley trustees in April, only $1 million, less than 0.1%, went to animal-related charities—and that a fraction of the $5 billion (hey, 10% would still be $500 million!) would really help. Ed Sayres, President and CEO of the ASPCA added, "There has been a sea change in recent years in how we treat animals and the Helmsley Trustees don’t understand that change... Dogs give us so much in our lives, and the least we can do is make sure they are not harmed, exploited, or neglected, and the Helmsley estate allows us to do so. It is not an overstatement to say that the fate of dogs in this country could very well rest on the decision of this lawsuit."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
in death, unlike in life, we're supposed to have control over what happens to our money. she was very clear where she wanted HER money to go - cumo and this others have robbed this lady
I would definitely call that an overstatement, Mr Sayres. The fate of dogs? Come on now.
That being said, it is an outrage that ANY of the money was redirected. She wrote the will, she signed it, she was right in her head (well, as right in the head as she ever was). Where exactly do these people get off contradicting her wishes? How is it remotely legal? I can only hope someone steals all the money they leave in their wills so they can roll in their graves the same as Mrs Helmsley is doing right now.
I don't think it's an overstatement when you consider that even if only 10% of the estate was dedicated to animal welfare, it would EASILY be the largest single funder of animal welfare in the United States. Animal welfare as an overall cause receives only a fraction of charitable giving in the United States (3% combined with environmental causes, with a little more than half of that going to the environmental side), so it's not crazy to think that Helmsley's estate, if granted wisely, has enormous potential to change animal welfare (like reducing euthanasia, helping to work for tougher felony laws for certain cruelty crimes, etc.)
Where exactly do these people get off contradicting her wishes? How is it remotely legal?
My thoughts exactly.
That trust is nothing but Trouble.
One million out of 136? Where the hell is the rest of the money going to?
The rest of the money went to medical research: "$115 million to medical research (including $40 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center for a digestive diseases center, $25 million to Mount Sinai Medical Center a electrophysiology center, and $10 million to Mount Sinai School of Medicine an inflammatory bowel disease center." Worthy causes, I'm sure, but relative to the overall spirit of Helmsley's will to help the welfare of dogs, it's definitely questionable.
You never, ever want to get caught between a non-profit and a will. The big guns come out and they will shoot to kill. I knew a guy years ago who worked for a multi millionaire who lived to be 109 years. He worked for the man for 30 years and managed his money and made him richer than he could have ever imagined. The employer left a codicil in his will to his financial adviser and friend of 5%. The charities that were willed the balance fought relentlessly to knock out the bequest. They finally settled, but not before beating the guy to a pulp. Charities are run by people who only want the money because they get a percentage of it. The recipients be damned.
The trustees were very stupid to give only 1 million, out of the 136 million distributed, to animal welfare groups as this is public information. The groups correctly calculated they would get so much more by fighting in court. The trustees not only ignored Helmsley's written legal wishes, but should be removed for the stupidity of provoking legal action.
Love her or hate her, the woman was very clear about her wishes. She did *not* want to help people - she actually crossed out a provision in an early draft of her will that would give money to help "indigent people" first and dogs second - and she was really obvious about wanting her money to go to dog welfare groups. This article gives a good rundown. Anyway, I think the take-home lesson here is: spend your money while you're still alive, as it's the only way you'll truly put it where you want it to go.
She was a mean old bitch and it'd serve her right if the money were to go to a charity that actually does something important for society rather than something frivolous like she wanted.
That being said, lawsuits aren't decided based on choosing an outcome that would best satisfy karma and it seems like what she wanted done with her money was pretty unambiguous.
This post is not correct. The will did not state that the entire will should be used toward dog welfare. The dog welfare is mentioned in a mission statement, and the trust instrument itself requires that 'special emphasis' be given to dog welfare. The beef that HSUS and others have is that the court claims they can totally ignore dog welfare, which is not special emphasis. Moreover, the amount they gave for dog welfare was about .1%, which probably is not special emphasis, relative to the other large gifts they gave.
Scans of the evolution of the two mission statements wrote by Leona Helmsley about how she wanted the money spent: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/09/helmsley-dogs.html
As Jeffrey Toobin writes in The New Yorker:
To make her intentions clear for the trust, she signed two mission statements, which have not previously been made public. On September 16, 2003, Leona signed a document that listed three goals for the planned expenditures. The money was to go first “to the provision of care for dogs.” The second was more conventional: “the provision of medical and health care services for indigent people, with emphasis on providing care to children.” A third category covered “such other charitable activities as the Trustee shall determine.” About six months later, however, Helmsley changed her mind. On March 1, 2004, she signed a new mission statement that revoked the previous one, and made one significant change. She now omitted the second purpose—medical care for the indigent, especially children—and left only the purpose of caring for dogs and the catch-all third category.
Actually- if anyone were to look at Madame Helmsley's record of giving while she was alive, it would be discovered that:
Historically the Helmsley philanthropy has gone to Hospitals and Medical research. The largest gift that Mrs. Helmsley gave during her lifetime was given in 2006, $25 million to name the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Surgical Suite, housed in a new facility for Advanced Therapeutic Services at New York Presbyterian Hospital.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything---it's extremely common for donors to want something to be done differently with their money after death than what they did during their lifetime. There is often a discrepancy between the lifetime giving of people and their charitable bequest giving.
According to what primary resource?