Leona Helmsly, the widow of a billionaire real estate mogul, recently passed away and her will was just made public. The results: Her dog gets $12 million dollars, while two of her four grandkids get nothing. I don’t have a problem with her not leaving money to her grandkids, that is between her and them. (She left a note stating they would get nothing for “reasons that are known to them.”). Her other grandchildren receive $5 million, provided they meet certain conditions.
But seriously, why does a dog need $12 million? I understand you want the dog to be well taken care of, but $12 million is a little ridiculous. The $12 million goes into a trust which will be run by her brother, and there is no word on what will happen to the money when her dog passes. I’m assuming they won’t use the entire $12 million for doggy chow and gilded food bowls.
On a side note, she directed that her estate liquidate much of her properties and assets, reportedly worth billions, and that the money be given to the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. It’s good to hear that her money will be going to a good cause.
But $12 million for a dog!?! Why? The only thing I can think of is perhaps there is some kind of favorable tax advantage to placing the money in a trust. But I have no idea. $12 million for dog care just seems a little over the top to me.
Source: CNN News (story no longer available).
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
probably one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard – an animal over bloodline
Sure, it’s over the top — but it is her money. She should have every right to dispense of it as she chooses, including giving it to her dog.
But yeah, $12 million is excessive for a dog — a dog could not possibly need or even want that kind of money. Depending on the dog’s age, I’m sure a few hundred grand could have had him in Doggy Heaven for the rest of his life.
Still, I’d rather read a story about an eccentric willing $12 million to her pooch than about Michael Vick! His dogs are going to cost him about ten times that much.
Oh, I agree, Jason. It’s her money she can do with it what she pleases. I don’t know the situation between her and her slighted grandkids, but I don’t have a problem with it. She chose not to leave them any money, and so be it.
But there is no way anyone can convince me it will take $12 million to care for a dog for the rest of its life. I can only imagine there is some kind of pass through or beneficial tax law that will leave the remainder of the money in the trust to her brother when the dog passes on. Oh, and when it does, it will be buried in her family mausoleum.
After the dog dies the proceeds could go to various rescue societies. That would be a wise use of funds, assuming everyone else has been provided for.
Dimes, you would hope that is what will happen, but I have no clue. It is in a trust, so there could be explicit instructions or it could be left to the discretion of the trustee.
There aren’t many days in a year when you feel like being a dog.. but things like these might just provide enough motivation.
I think she probably did something like that to “teach a lesson” to some of her relatives or something of that sort. There might even be a noble motive, but it’s hard to say since the media tends to take things out of context.
I agree, Golbguru. I’m sure there is some reason behind this and both of your assumptions are probably correct. She wanted to teach he kin a lesson, or at least spite them, and the trust has some other purpose the public is not privy to.
She was probably accounting for inflation with the price of dog food and veternairy care nowdays. After all, a dog year is 7 human years or something like that. LOL.