Leona Helmsley Leaves Billions To Dogs

NY Times: Late Hotel Queen Wants $5B-$8B Trust Used For Care And Welfare Of Pooches

(CBS)  The late New York hotel queen Leona Helmsley left a two-page "mission statement" that specifies that practically her entire trust, valued between $5 billion and $8 billion, be used for the care and welfare of dogs, The New York Times reports.

The newspaper, citing two unidentified sources, said Helmsley indicated in 2003 that the money should go to poor people and dogs. A year later, the sources said, she dropped poor people from the list.

The "mission statement" is not part of her will, but the Times reports the law favors remaining faithful to the donor's intent. That means the trustees of the fortune may have difficulty ignoring her wishes, though that has already happened in at least one instance.

Manhattan Surrogate Judge Renee Roth reduced the trust fund for Helmsley's personal dog, "Trouble," from $12 million to $2 million.

The 9-year-old Maltese lives in Florida with Carl Lekic, the general manager of the Helmsley Sandcastle Hotel. Helmsley died last August.

The New York Post said Lekic put Trouble's annual cost at $190,000. That figure includes Lekic's $60,000 guardian fee, $100,000 for security, $8,000 for grooming, $3,000 for miscellaneous expenses, $1,200 for food and 2,500 to $18,000 for medical care.

The Post also that Judge Roth also gave $6 million to Helmsley's two disinherited grandchildren.

Roth's decision was made April 30, but only became public last month.

[antoniof123]

I say this woman was the spirt of evil and we should use her money to help others in need not dogs.

[nothappyatall]

I say this woman was the spirt of evil and we should use her money to help others in need not dogs.

Posted by antoniof123

You have it backwards, PEOPLE are the spirit of evil, the money SHOULD go to help dogs not people, people create their own destiny and problems. Helmsley wanted HER money to be used a certain way, that is her right not some activist judge who takes it on himself to decide to violate the terms of the will and I find that reprehensible.

[rwassel]

Well, it is her money, and she can spend it however foolishly she wants to. It''s no different than people spending millions of dollars on useless pieces of **** to fill their homes with.

[fstop100]

If we don''t want to help animals, why do we have SPCA?

[samthetvcat]

Wow that kind of money for pets is INSANE! That must translate to like millions of dollars for every shelter in the country.

If it ends up being the same deal as with Trouble that the grant ends up being an excessive windfall subject to societal waste, then that''ll probably put ''poor people'' back in play as recipients I would think.

Geez, what a piece of work Leona Helmsley was . . . scary!

[pollroller1]

I think that it''s great that she left her money to help dogs. Way to go Leona.

[ianlou]

She treated people like dogs and dogs like people.
I''m happy for the humain Society.
My dogs are some of the best people I know.

[cbsguest6]

This is unbelievable, there is so much good that could be done with that money and it''s being wasted on some dogs. All those dogs need is a can of Alpo and a open space to live in, not a 5-8 billion dollar trust fund.

[piercetheval]

...I love it!

[blogthis1]

I be your dawg! Give me the money

[arrestbush1]

so what happens when the dogs pass away from natural causes? Then who gets the money. If the media is as pathetic as they seem to be, they''ll probably say the dogs gave the money to good will.

[jumkey]

jibbering nonsense

Posted by newster1

READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON IT. YOU GOT ALL OF THE FACTS WRONG.

[erintippin]

People, you''re totally forgetting this was HER money and she could do anything she wanted with it. Do I think it''s insane to leave all her money to dogs? You betcha! But when all is said and done, it was her choice. And I think it was wrong, wrong, WRONG for the judge to give her disinherited grandchildren $6 million. Again, it was her money and she did not want them to have it. What gives a judge or anyone else for that matter, the right to decide how HER money is spent? Think about it. Would you want that to happen to your estate?

[sgtrds-e4]

I think it''s great. If I were rich I''d leave most of my money to helping out dogs too. Most dogs are better then most people.

[displeased]

All those dogs need is a can of Alpo and a open space to live in, not a 5-8 billion dollar trust fund.
Posted by cbsguest6

It''s a little more complicated than a can of dogfood. Expenses can quickly accumulate in regards to kennels, vaccinations, spade/nueter, and so forth. Especially with the no-kill shelters. Congratulations to the shelters! I hope they get the money.

And judges or anybody should not have the authority to change wills. What would be the point of having them?

[cbsguest6]

It''s just a dog. It can only contribute so much to society. It doesn''t need 5-8 billion dollars to live its 10-15 years.

[sgtrds-e4]

It''''s just a dog. It can only contribute so much to society. It doesn''''t need 5-8 billion dollars to live its 10-15 years.

Posted by cbsguest6 at 10:25 AM : Jul 02, 2008

The billions of dollars are not going just to the one dog. It''s to help out all dogs from now on.

[jrk1964-2009]

Wow! When millions of human beings are starving to death in Africa, she was concerned about dogs!

[faith_in_w]

Thats a good idea. Better than helping people, they would just turn liberal and look for handouts.

[redstripe11]

I hope Leona likes hot weather. There''s plenty of it where she is right now until about eternity.

Burn in hell!

[kaviz]

Man, I bet even the dog winced when it had to lick that face.

[harp1963]

One look at this lady and you will understand the sayings "money can''t buy happiness" and "blessed are the poor."

[cbsguest6]

If you think dogs need 5-8 billion dollars worth of care then you''ve probably never been hungry, you''ve probably never needed medical care and couldn''t afford it or had to borrow a large sum of money for medical care, you''ve probably never been homeless either. Dogs don''t need 5-8 billion dollars to live. I think the courts have a right to step in and intervene when someone makes a decision that would appear to appeal more to vanity than humanity when they pass and they make ostentatious wishes such as this.

[payasyougo]

Nice to know people can redirect your funds after you go.

By the way, didn''t I see her in a Batman movie?

[displeased]

Wow! When millions of human beings are starving to death in Africa, she was concerned about dogs!
Posted by jrk1964

People have different priorities. The beauty of it is, if you''re concerned about the starving people in Africa, then you have the freedom to send all your money you want over there. Nobody can stop you, except for maybe a judge.

[sgtrds-e4]

Human beings took wolves out of the wild, domesticated them and bred out just about every attribute they''d need to survive in the wild. That makes them OUR responsibility. This is probably the only thing I could ever find to praise her for, but it''s a big one.

[cbsguest6]

I''ll clarify a little more on my feelings. When she was alive what she wanted to do with her money was her right. However when she passed the next of kin should be considered, then society and if there is anything left maybe the pets of the deceased.

[voltaire333]

The money was either hers to do what she wanted with or it was not. Which is it, America? Stop having such double standards. Americans believe that a person should be able to leave their money to whomever they want, provided we approve of their choice. Typical good old-fashioned American hypocrisy.

[kaviz]

It should be interesting to see the humane society driving limos to pick up strays.

[sgtrds-e4]

A person who is rich or poor has no obligation whatsoever to leave their money to their descendants or to society. It''s their money and it''s their wishes for it that must be considered. If a judge takes this money away and reassigns it elsewhere then that is nothing more then stealing.

[ianlou]

In the picture, I see two dogs.

[cbsguest6]

I wish Charles Dickens were alive today and heard about this. He probably would have worked this into "A Christmas Carol" somehow...

[ianlou]

wish Charles Dickens were alive today and heard about this. He probably would have worked this into "A Christmas Carol" somehow...
Posted by cbsguest6

Yeah, Scrooge wakes up Christmas Morning and decides to give his fortune to the Christmas Goose.

[shoebox119]

A person who is rich or poor has no obligation whatsoever to leave their money to their descendants or to society. It''''s their money and it''''s their wishes for it that must be considered. If a judge takes this money away and reassigns it elsewhere then that is nothing more then stealing.

Posted by SgtRDS-E4

____________________


True, but her decision reflects an individual who probably screened herself from the problems and needs of everyday people. More than likely, she was clueless as to how the bottom third of our society struggles just to feed themselves everyday.

Dogs are pets, and having pets are fine. But when they are elevated to or above the status of humans, I have a problem with that kind of thinking.

[cbsguest6]

By the way, didn''''t I see her in a Batman movie?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by payasyougo at 10:44 AM : Jul 02, 2008

I usually don''t have a problem with what the rich and eccentric do with their money. But when someone makes a decision such as this I wonder if they were thumbing their nose at society...

[sgtrds-e4]

Dogs are pets, and having pets are fine. But when they are elevated to or above the status of humans, I have a problem with that kind of thinking.

Posted by shoebox119 at 11:07 AM : Jul 02, 2008

If she had left all of this money to her personal pets then I could see a problem with that. However since it''s dedicated for the car of all dogs in shelters or strays then I have no problem with it at all. It''s certainly a problem that could be helped by this money. Besides I still think most dogs are better then most people.

[maddux1967]

What a wonderful thing that perhaps she would have left money to be used for the care of homeless animals as the need, especially now, is so great. Perhaps she found as most animal lovers know, that dogs are the only thing that truely offer unconditional love. I hope that this money is put to good use and made available to so many smaller rescues out there that are so burdened with trying to help as many dogs as they can and try so hard to stretch the small amount of money that they have to care as best as they are able for the many dogs that come into their care due to neglect and cruelty. For a woman who lived such a selfish, greedly life, how ironic that her last act was one of selfless giving. At least the money will not go to some relative that will just **** it away on luxury and greed.

[ubrew12]

SgtRDS-E4 said: "A person who is rich or poor has no obligation whatsoever to leave their money to their descendants or to society...If a judge takes this money away and reassigns it elsewhere then that is nothing more then stealing. "

I think a judge can reasonably conclude Helmsley was insane to prefer her money be given to dogs rather than people. And I''d also conclude such of anyone who agreed with her, or who felt that it was her business alone. The woman is dead. She''s lost the only thing of real value, and following her last wishes only buys into the mockery she made of life while she was alive. What happens to her money is now a matter for the living. They should consider her last wishes, but doing so blindly buys into the fiction that the dead have some ''hold'' over the living on how society should be structured. In Helmsleys case, in particular, that''s just inflating her insanity to infect the rest of society in general. People will starve (but dogs will not) if her wishes are followed. Any society that would find that preferrable is insane, but I wouldn''t put it past modern American society at this point.

[pugster]

Another reason why people treat their pets better than they treat themselves.

[erasmus81]

"Dogs are pets, and having pets are fine. But when they are elevated to or above the status of humans, I have a problem with that kind of thinking." Posted by shoebox119 at 11:07 AM : Jul 02, 2008

Why? I see animals as loving creatures. What harm do they do? Can you say the same for humans? Humans destroy everything they touch.

[godseyesore-2009]

Really really really OLD news.
CBS, get real here!

[kaviz]

I hope the humane societies actually get some of the money before it''s eaten up by lawyers. Also, there are a lot worse things she could have given that money to, such as right wing churches, GOP and cats.

[etheone]

The will should be left intact, as wished by the deceased. Her children had no business getting a penny. i wonder how much the Manhattan Judge will indirectly get...(snic)... this is bull - and I hope a higher court overturns his ruling. if She wants the money to go to dogs - so be it. Put the money in a trust and allocate it to various dog orginizations, like the SPCA, and other Dog shelters - this would relieve the cost of operating such programs, many of which are privately funded with little public money.

[etheone]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Her decision to leave the money to the dogs - it was HER money. The Children were not "disinherited" for nothing.

[republic1776]

CBS this is old news.
The Judge should be booted off the bench, he can''t make up his or her own rules and decide where the money is used best. It''s not his money....

[missingamerica]

lolll...leona helmsley, the neocon''s neocon...

And who mourns her passing? Her rich dogs? Ya think? Or would they focus their love on another person at the drop of a hat - as long as they treated them better than leona treated humans?

[shoebox119]

I see animals as loving creatures. What harm do they do? Can you say the same for humans? Humans destroy everything they touch.

Posted by erasmus81

_________________


You''re over generalizing on both accounts. No one claimed animals are doing anyone any harm and while humans have created most of their own problems, their history is full of accomplishment.

The bottom line is that human society has evolved over countless millennia with at least one established belief: human life is the most precious life of all. We generally live with this belief and our laws reflect it as well.

Lately, there has been a growing trend among a very vocal minority that strongly believe in more or less terms that "animals are people, too."

I shudder to think of the consequences should we, as a society, venture down this road too far.

[wallyj16]

Dear CBS,

If the news directors had their children off to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, what would be news to you? I''m truly disgusted at the way the news media reports the war whether one is for it or not. Thanks for watching out for the rich while my sons risk their lives for your sorry selves. Shame on our own people for sitting on their hands and not being outraged as well. What happened to our watchdogs of democracy?

[richnj1]

SgtRDS-E4 said: "A person who is rich or poor has no obligation whatsoever to leave their money to their descendants or to society...If a judge takes this money away and reassigns it elsewhere then that is nothing more then stealing. "

I understand your perspective, but there are different fundamentals at work here:

1. From whom would society be "stealing"? I love dogs, but they have no legal standing with regard to property. If I "steal" my dog''s chew toy, I may get bitten, but I can''t be jailed.

2. Property is a legal construction. Laws determine what you can or cannot own. It is particularly justifiable for a legal system to assert that property rights end at death. After all, you did not bring property into the world and you will not take it out; you do not have an inherent right to control your property in perpetuity. If she really cared about dogs, she should have given the money to specific charities while she was alive rather than leave it to a trust.

[sgtrds-e4]

richnj1

By not honoring her wishes that her money be left to dogs, as in shelters, etc., the court would be stealing from her as it was her money to decide how to disperse, not the courts. People leave money to the Humane Society all of the time and it''s not questioned. The only difference here is the amount.