I'm hoping for input here from our some of our regulars who are more knowledgeable about legal proceedings.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...Helmsley.Dogs/
Now, my personal opinion is that this lady was ridiculous in leaving her estate to her dog and specifying that her money should all go to dog/animal-related charities. However, if it was explicitly stated in her will that that's what she wants done with her multi-billion dollar estate, then that is what should have happened.
Instead, her trustees only donated a fraction of the full value ($136 million according to the article) to charity. Of that fraction, they gave less than 1% to animal-related organizations, despite her will specifying that it should all go there.
I'm not a legal expert or at all familiar with how multi-billion dollar estates are handled, so I'm hoping one of you might be able to shed a little light on this situation. I don't know what's going on, but I do know that, if I were Helmsley, I'd be rolling over in my grave. There is no way that this could be what she meant in her will.
I guess it strongly disturbs me that it seems people can basically ignore what I want done with my money property after I'm gone, despite having a will.


Reply With Quote