Animal welfare groups fight for dogs' piece of Helmsley estate

  (AP Photo/Jennifer Graylock)

Leona Helmsley, once known as the "Queen of Mean," might today be better known as the "Queen of Lean" when it comes to the honoring of her final wishes and estate plan.  Upon her August 2007 death, Helmsley’s desire to leave her estate to help dogs was used as further example of a widely-acknowledged graceless demeanor.  With those wishes having been largely ignored, three prominent animal welfare organizations have now filed a motion asking for court intervention regarding distributions from Helmsley's $5 billion estate. 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and Maddie's Fund are asking a Manhattan court to force Helmsley trustees to honor Helmsley's expressed intentions.  According to the groups, "less than $100,000 of the initial $136 million Helmsley grants have gone to dog welfare."  

In September 2008, Jeffrey Toobin wrote a piece for The New Yorker entitled Rich Bitch in which he describes how Helmsley came to leave her estate, in the form of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust with an estimated value of $3 - 8 billion, “to the provision of care for dogs” along with another catch-all category granting broader discretion to the trustees.   

Per Toobin’s article, on September 16, 2003,  Helmsley signed a document that detailed the trust’s mission statement.  A first statement listed three goals for the planned expenditures:  first was “to the provision of care for dogs”; second was “the provision of medical and health care services for indigent people, with emphasis on providing care to children”; and a third goal covered “such other charitable activities as the Trustee shall determine.”  The statement was revised six months later with the second provision (medical care for people, especially children) omitted. 

So the “Queen of Mean” strikes again.  Can’t you hear it?  Leona Helmsley hates kids and loves dogs.  Maybe she thought children’s causes get sufficient funding.  Maybe she was around some ratty kid that caused her to change her mind.  It doesn’t matter.  It was her money to do with as she saw fit.  If she wanted the dogs to have it, the dogs should then get it.  Who is to say “this is your property, but you can’t (legally) do with it as you want”?  Evidently the Surrogate's Court of Manhattan. 

The first reversal of Helmsley's wishes came in June 2008.  Helmsley had four grandchildren.  Two were included in her will as well as made executors (along with others) of her estate.  Two were excluded from any inheritance.  With an estate contest from the two disinherited grandchildren, estate executors decided to settle the dispute quickly by “amending the will.”  The contesting grandchildren’s claim was based on Helmsley’s mental capacity upon signing her 2005 will. 

Who knew that executors could change a will to include otherwise omitted heirs?  Per news reports, though, that's what happened with the move approved by the New York Attorney General as well as a judge.  How does this discounting of the clear intentions of a decedent not now set a dangerous precedent that could jeopardize the rights of inheritance of the deceased and other potential heirs? 

Then, there's Trouble, Helmsley's Maltese.  At the same time as the will “amendment,” the $12 million set aside for the care of Trouble was reduced to $2 million.  Upon Trouble’s death, any unused money was designated to be transferred into the Helmsley charitable trust.  Why once again, did a legal precedent have to be established in which a decedent’s expressed wishes were disregarded?  In due time, the same outcome would have been achieved yet with a course that included honoring Helmsley’s wishes.  With that, why would a judge blatantly choose to disrespect a person’s final wishes?     

In February 2009, Judge Troy K. Webber of Surrogate's Court in Manhattan ruled that the Helmsley estate trustees may distribute the money as they see fit.  In a ruling he wrote "The court finds that the trustees may apply trust funds for such charitable purposes and in such amounts as they may, in their sole discretion, determine.”

At the time, The New York Times reported:

Experts in trusts and estates had warned that Mrs. Helmsley’s order that her fortune be spent promoting canine well-being may not have been legally binding. The two-page “mission statement” that contained her instructions also gave the trustees discretion in spending the money, and it was never incorporated into her will or the trust documents.

A statement released by the organizations says:

"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," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Every person with a will or estate, and every charity that relies on bequest income, should be profoundly concerned about this misdirection of funds." 

They further contend that "State Attorneys General have a responsibility to protect the wishes of any heir or heiress, and also to protect the entire charitable sector from the whims of trustees who wish to ignore detailed and unambiguous estate planning instructions. In this case, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo failed in his charge to protect these interests."

Rich Avanzino, president of Maddie's Fund, said "Literally hundreds of millions of dollars that have been willed by people nationally, who cared about dogs, have not gone to provide for dogs as was intended.  The ignoring of donor intent in this country has become an unspoken national shame." 

Absolutely.  Ignoring donor intent is a national shame and it happens with estates far more than just those providing for dogs!  Involuntary Redistribution of Assets (IRA) actions are cases in which wills, trusts, guardianships and powers of attorneys are used to divert assets away from intended heirs or beneficiaries - and this includes estates of all sizes! 

Reports indicate that animal welfare organizations started "lining up" shortly after Helmsley's death. That these three particular mega-groups are taking the lead in righting the injustice done to Helmsley's wishes and dogs throughout America seems a bit self-serving, but they do have a legitimate point in challenging this blatant disregard of Helmsley's stated wishes.  If at some point trustees elect or are directed to honor estate plan specifics, it would be hoped that the thousands of smaller animal welfare organizations operating throughout the U.S. might also at least be eligible to become recipients of Helmsley's generosity.     

Despite Helmsley's mission statements being viewed as "outside the trust documents," they were her clear and undisputed  intentions.  How tragic that the people entrusted to execute her wishes would use a technicality to be so dismissive.  And doesn't one have to wonder if the attorneys now arguing to disregard the mission statements are the same legal professionals who helped draft such statements and, if so, did they not advise incorporating them into the trust?  IRA cases breed cynicism so observers of such cases might ask if an "out" was purposefully left for the later diversion of estate assets in lieu of honoring Helmsley's apparently sincere wishes.         
   
Leona Helmsley’s reputation of being a rude, mean and arrogant woman was likely deserved.  Regardless, though, an ugly personality isn’t grounds to usurp basic property rights including final distribution of one’s assets. And with an estate plan intact, Helmsley would probably never have foreseen her will being “amended” and animal welfare organizations being largely excluded from estate distributions. 

This should give pause for concern as new IRA cases surface daily.  Many people’s economic welfare has already been harmed due to current economic turmoil and ever-increasing taxation.  Now, estate assets once thought to be yours or your prospective heirs may not stay that way due to speculative efforts of disgruntled family members or others perceiving some “entitlement.”  Widespread exposure of this problem is critical.  No inoculation for Involuntary Redistribution of Assets exists, but forewarned is forearmed.
 

For more info: 

Landmark Helmsley Legal Trust Challenge by America's Three Pre-Eminent Animal Welfare Organizations (August 11, 2009)

Not All of Helmsley’s Trust Has to Go to Dogs (February 25, 2009)

Estate Looting of the Rich and Famous (and How It Can Happen to You) (November 18, 2008)

Dogs rule, government/organizations drool over Helmsley estate (October 1, 2008)

Rich Bitch.  The legal battle over trust funds for pets.  (September 29, 2008)

Screw the Pooch:  Leona's Pup Loses $10M of Trust Fund (June 16, 2008)            

If you are interested in new posts from this site, please "Subscribe by E-mail" on my home page.