Her biggest inheriter is her dog. 12 million.
Two grandkids get 5 million each – only if they visit their father’s grave annually. I wonder what happens if they stop after several years – presumably there’s some kind of trust to screw them in that case.
Her chauffer gets a lousy 100 grand. She left way more than that to maintain her own fucking mausoleum – a $3 million dollar cleaning fund.
Two other grandkids get nothing.
Sheesh.
Somehow I think this is going to be contested.
did you miss this part of the linked article: She ordered that cash from sales of the Helmsley’s residences and belongings, reported to be worth billions, be sold and that the money be given to the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.
I’m not saying it’s right to cut out the two grandkids, but billions to charity ain’t exactly putting her into the bitch from hell camp either.
I liked the NY Post’s headline this morning:
RICH BITCH
If only the “journalism” was half as competent as the headline writers, it might actually be a real newspaper.
To quote David Cross:
“A cat can’t tell the difference between a crystal goblet and a shit lined shoe box.”
Honestly…
I thought putting conditions on an inheritance wasn’t allowed. You either give someone the money or not - none of this, “You can have $5 million but only if you…”
I think the dog (named Trouble, natch) needs the money for potential lawsuits. From the Post
With China Guy’s addition, here’s the roll:
Charity - Billions
Trouble - $12 Mil in a trust
Grandkid 1 - $5 Mil in a trust
Grandkid 2 - $5 Mil in a trust
Chauffeur - $100G cash on the barrelhead
Everyone else - Zippo
Frankly, I got no problem with it, not in the slightest. Just because you’re some rich person’s grandkid doesn’t mean you should be guaranteed millions of dollars when they croak. Especially if you haven’t had a relationship with them during life. I have no doubt that Trouble gave Leona more joy and companionship in 8 years than the grandkids did for their entire lives, why not give Trouble more than some ungrateful progeny?
I saw that exact quote in the article. Why would she order that cash be sold? Can’t they just spend cash? Surely no newspaper editor was stupid enough to let that sentence pass if it isn’t what the will intended.
Sailboat
Me either. Its her money, she gets to dispose of it as she chooses. And as far as Trouble’s take, it isn’t like that money isn’t going straight back into the economy - its functionally willing a job to Trouble’s staff. I can think of things I’d rather do for a living than care for a spoiled dog, but its a job.
A lot of wealthy people don’t intend to leave their kids the bulk of their wealth. Warren Buffet doesn’t, Bill Gates doesn’t. I doubt their kids will starve, but with $5 million, the Helmsley grandkids aren’t going to starve either.
Whatever her grandkids get really is trivial, it’s not their right to such money, but 12 mil spent on a dog is just wasteful. Good for her fucking dog. I really hope it’s happy.
God forbid that money went towards saving a few hundred human lives, possibly thousands depending on usage.
A dollar means a lot to some people in other countries. 12 million of them might mean slightly more to them. There I go again, being a bleeding heart liberal. Down with sickly orphans! Perrier for the dog!
I’m sure the dog’s caretakers are overwhelmed with joy about having employment in perpetuity, but perhaps even they could think of a better use for such funds.
It is her money though, maybe if she chose to have it set on fire there would be no controversy. Yes. Burn the money, there could be no better use for it, and it would resolve any favoritism arguments definitively.
Huh! I’d never heard that, how interesting. It makes a lot of sense, in a way; the process of earning that kind of wealth has to be more worthwhile than mere ownership of it.
A $5m nest egg is a nice way to start off in life.
But I still agree Helmsley was a bitch. No reason for her to change upon exit.
Technical/legal question: In cases like these, who gets the money when the pampered pet dies?
Not arguing with you, just pointing out that 2 of the grandkids got nothing.
Obviously it’s her money and she can do what she wants, but it’s a bit of a slap in the face to your descendants to leave them zilch while living millions for the care of your pet.
Anyway, her attorneys must have explained to her that anyone she totally disinherits will have no disincentive to contest the will.
What she should have done had her will set up a trust to pay for college for those two grandchildren.
So, should the dog just accidentally happen to kick it, who is the leftover money going to?
Ah, this just points up the absuridity of unchecked capitalism. Leona Helmsley never was worth millions, much less billions, any more than her dog was ever worth 12 million. Allowing people control over vast sums of money because of who they married or who their father was (Hi, Paris Hilton!) is fucking dumb. Capitalism is fucking dumb in a lot of ways, and Helmsley’s will just brings it to the forefront. Her bitchiness and resulting ridiculous will isn’t the underlying cause here, it’s just an effect.
What in the hell does this mean? Who should have control over these vast sums?
She’s already giving billions to charity, over 100x the amount she gave to her dog, the bulk of which is probably going to go back to the charity anyway once the dog kicks off in 10 years. The $12 mil is kept in trust, and if you have a decent person running the trust (perhaps that’s a naive thought), earning interest on the money and not spending it all on doggy hookers and blow, there will be tons left when the dog dies, and it’ll be rolled right back into the money she’s giving to charity.
Lady gives about 99% of her wealth to charity and still people complain.
I agree that was her money to do with what she wanted but what she chose to do with it makes her a petty bitch. One does not exclude the other.
The Workers, Comrade!