Poor little rich pets inherit millions.

There was a fascinating article by Jeffrey Toobin, in The New Yorker magazine recently, that looked at the trouble with Trouble -- the Maltese pup that inherited $12 million from the "Queen of Mean," Leona Helmsley.

Toobin's piece explored Helmsley's complicated relationship with her family, and her motivation for leaving $12 million to her dog. Toobin also suggests that lawyers and animal activists are encouraging this practice -- and that it gets to the heart of the ongoing legal debate over if companion animals are property or -- well -- companions.
Here is an excerpt:

The size of the bequests, to Trouble and to dogs generally, has generated widespread astonishment.

In fact, the clear motivation underlying Leona Helmsley’s will—her desire to pass her wealth on to dogs—is more common than might be expected. Pet-lovers (many of whom now prefer the term “animal companion”) have engineered a quiet revolution in the law to allow, in effect, nonhumans to inherit and spend money.

It is becoming routine for dogs to receive cash and real estate in the form of trusts, and there is already at least one major foundation devoted to helping dogs. A network of lawyers and animal activists has orchestrated these changes, largely without opposition, in order to whittle down the legal distinctions between human beings and animals. They are already making plans for the Helmsleys’ billions.

One of the most insightful points, however, came at the end of the piece: At the end of the day, an aging Trouble probably would have vastly preferred to be on a threadbare couch with someone who loved her rather than napping on a Louis XIV sette alone. The conclusion of the article:

Throughout her life, Leona Helmsley demonstrated not just a lack of affection for her fellow-humans but an absence of understanding as well. The irony is that, for all that her will purports to show her love for Trouble, Leona didn’t seem to understand dogs very well, either.

“What is funny about giving all this money to one dog is that it doesn’t deal with the fact that the dog is going to be sad that Leona died,” Elizabeth Harman, who teaches philosophy at Princeton, said.

“What would make this dog happy is for a loving family to take it in. The dog doesn’t want the money. The money will just make everyone who deals with the dog strange.”

So what do you think? Should people will large sums to their pets? Does a large trust ensure an animal companion will receive better care?

In case you want more on this topic, here's another story on a squabble over millions willed to animal welfare groups in Houston.

(above photo from The New Yorker)

WOMAN'S WILL LEAVES MILLIONS TO CARE FOR ANIMALS
By BILL MURPHY
c.2008 Houston Chronicle
(
HOUSTON -- After her marriage soured in the mid-1980s, Ann Slemons Young left her home in Newport Beach, Calif., and moved to Houston, where she found consolation in her pets.

Her passion for animal causes grew. Before dying last year, the 70-year-old mobile home park owner specified that much of her estate would go to finding homes for unwanted animals and helping set up a veterinary clinic.

Everyone agrees that Young's estate left about $2 million to $4 million to animal causes. But there is immense disagreement over which animal organization should receive the money.

The city of Houston says Young's will explicitly states that what remains of the estate after bequests to relatives should go to a foundation.

"The foundation," the will says, "shall exist, and the properties of the foundation shall be used, exclusively and solely, for the support of the City of Houston Bureau of Animal Control (sic)."

But Mike Meehan, Young's son and executor of her estate, has balked at turning over several
million dollars to the city agency - actually called the Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care - because, he says, it does little to promote adoptions and is grossly underfunded.

Other parts of his mother's will, he said, give the foundation's trustees the right to choose which animal organizations receive funding.

"If my mom's will said I was supposed to hand over a big chunk of money to the city, that's what I would do," Meehan said. "But that's not what the will says."

The dispute has landed before Harris County Probate Judge William McCulloch, who will decide in the coming months whether the city or Meehan has interpreted the will correctly.

The charitable trusts division of the state attorney general's office has joined the battle. It says it needs to find out whether Meehan intends to comply with the will's intent of setting up a charitable trust that will benefit BARC or other animal facilities.

Young's interest in animal causes intensified about 10 years ago when she was thrown from a horse and nearly died, Meehan said. She decided she would use part of her money to help animals.

"My mother's thinking was that animals do not have ulterior motives. They can give unconditional love," said Meehan, 48, a yacht salesman in Newport Beach who spends part of his time in Houston, tending to his mother's estate.

When she died, Young owned two Tennessee Walker horses and several cats.
Elena Marks, Mayor Bill White's health policy director, said Young made plans to give money to BARC while she was alive. Marks said Young discussed the plans with her and Alison Smith, a lawyer and former chair of the mayor's Animal Protection Task Force.

A deal wasn't reached before Young died on March 28, 2007.
In her will, which includes several broken sentences, Young left her condominium, jewelry and other items to family members, including her son and daughter. She stipulated that $500,000 be put into a trust, with Meehan receiving $3,000 a month from it during his lifetime.

Essentially, the probate court fight is over Royal Coach Trails, a 15-acre mobile home park along the Hardy Toll Road in north Houston, as well as a 30-acre ranch in Waller County.
Meehan's appraiser estimated the value of Royal Coach Trails at $2.25 million. With about 100 lots, the park generates $384,000 in rental payments annually, Meehan said.

The will - immediately after stating that part of the estate will go to the Houston Bureau of Animal Control - says Young's money will help construct "a two-story animal shelter facility that will include, but not be limited to, (a) wellness clinic, illness clinic, cat-and-dog adoption area."

The city hopes to use the money to help establish a satellite animal shelter that would bolster the number of adoptions and reduce the euthanasia rate, said Marks and Smith, who is representing the city pro bono in the probate fight.

"There are definitely better facilities than BARC for adoptions. It is not as accessible to the public as we would like. It's more of an industrial setting," Marks said. "We want to couple this donation with private funding to build a facility we could all be proud of."

But Tom Coleman, a lawyer representing Meehan, said provisions in the will spell out that trustees overseeing the foundation can use the money to help build another BARC shelter or hand it to other organizations that promote sterilization and adoptions.

Instead of selling Royal Coach Trails and the ranch and giving the proceeds to BARC, Meehan would like to keep the properties.
Meehan had hoped to give land at Royal Coach Trails to Saving Animals, a nonprofit organization whose Fix Houston project aimed to halt euthanization of healthy, unwanted pets.

Under that plan, Fix Houston would have run a new spay-neuter facility, called the Ann Slemons Young clinic, at the mobile home park. But Fix Houston went under Thursday when it filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

Meehan said he now would like to help another nonprofit organization that would reduce euthanasia in Houston.