Well, given that the dog is a known biter, it seems that it is living on borrowed time, as I guess only the fear of Helmsley herself stopped someone calling animal control. I doubt those with custodianship of the dog now will be as forthright in protecting it from the consequences of its bad habits.
[QUOTE=hotflungwok]
So, should the dog just accidentally happen to kick it, who is the leftover money going to?
[/QUOTE]
And who controls how that money is spent? If I were the dog’s caretaker, I’d decide that the dog needed a big house out in the country. And a big SUV for me to drive it around in. And a big TV. For watching those videos of birds frolicking and such. And it’s sending my kids to through college, so they could become it’s personal veterinarians. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I’d also pay to send it off to those monks that do obedience training that I saw on Animal Planet. And then it could eat off the floor like a proper dog. I could probably get one of those monks to testify that such would be in the dog’s best interest, anyway.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It would be better if wealth were seized by Marxist windbags to finance their Cultural Revolutions. Then we wouldn’t have to listen to dissenting opinions all the time.
[QUOTE=dnooman]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=China Guy]
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.
[/QUOTE]
dnooman, I would think that billions donated to charity would get her off the hook for leaving 12 million to the dog.
[QUOTE=BiblioCat]
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…”
[/QUOTE]
It’s allowed and done often in trusts. You can have the money once you reach
18, you can have the money if you are a full-time student, etc.
IIRC, what has been struck down is when decedents try to place conditions on a land’s use into perpetuity, e.g. “My benefactors and my benefactor’s benefactors can only ever use this land as a sheep farm.”
[QUOTE=villa]
Well, given that the dog is a known biter, it seems that it is living on borrowed time, as I guess only the fear of Helmsley herself stopped someone calling animal control.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, if I were Helmsley’s dog, I’d be a biter, too.
[QUOTE=justrob]
dnooman, I would think that billions donated to charity would get her off the hook for leaving 12 million to the dog.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I was thinking too. I really was expecting more than leaving some money to her dog from the thread title.
When I first read about the will I too thought “what a crazy bitch.” While that assessment didn’t really change, it’s not because of the will. I realized that yeah, it was her money and she could do whatever she wanted with it. She could have left it all to the dog but she didn’t and she was under no obligation to give money to all her grandchildren, or any of them.
If I had a couple of billion, I might leave a few million to keep my cats in spring water and tuna tartar after I died.
[QUOTE=fessie]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not too picky; I could live with either.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Anyway, her attorneys must have explained to her that anyone she totally disinherits will have no disincentive to contest the will.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. She should have left them $40k or something. A friend of mine is a lawyer who has drafted quite a few wills. He always tells his clients that if he leaves out a family member, they can argue that it was an oversight. If they leave a very small amount like $1, they can argue that it was done in a moment of anger. It’s best to leave enough that they can’t make either case.
Anyway, I’m in the “it’s her money to do with as she pleases” camp.
[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
The Workers, Comrade!
[/QUOTE]
Obviously; I guess I should be sent to the gulag for re-education.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, according to CNN :
So, obviously the other two grandkids have done something stupid, hence the fact that they were left out of the will. Who knows what it was, but if she felt they didn’t deserve anything because of their actions, so be it.
She’s probably pissed off the kid is named Meegan. God knows that’d make me disinherit someone in a heartbeat. 
[QUOTE=Kid_A]
To quote David Cross:
“A cat can’t tell the difference between a crystal goblet and a shit lined shoe box.”
Honestly…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah? Then why do they always cack hairballs ON THE FUCKING CARPET? HUH?
Thats what I thought.
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Yeah? Then why do they always cack hairballs ON THE FUCKING CARPET? HUH?
Thats what I thought.
[/QUOTE]
Ha! Yes! 
[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
So, obviously the other two grandkids have done something stupid, hence the fact that they were left out of the will. Who knows what it was, but if she felt they didn’t deserve anything because of their actions, so be it.
[/QUOTE]
You have no idea what they did. It could be that they had strong values and refused to support their grandma on what they thought were immoral acts. This, I guess, would be stupid to some and heroic to others.
No doubt it is her money to leave to whom she wishes, and no doubt one has no moral entitlement to money just because you are someone’s descendant; and no doubt leaving the bulk of money to charity is a good thing.
But anyone who leaves more for the upkeep of her pet and tomb than her own grandkids, even the ones she doesn’t disinherit, strikes me on first glance as deserving the label of “bitch”.
Either these grandkids were nasty horrible people, or she was. Or possibly both.
Any word on how old the grandkids are and how much they’ve already inherited from other sources? Just out of curiosity.
I’m definitely in the ‘it’s her money’ camp. Here’s hoping that the dog can be retrained now that there’s no one egging it on.
[QUOTE=hajario]
You have no idea what they did. It could be that they had strong values and refused to support their grandma on what they thought were immoral acts. This, I guess, would be stupid to some and heroic to others.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if they disagree with her on a strong, moral level- then why the hell would they want her dirty money? I’m sure if what you are saying is the case, they are perfectly content not dirtying their hands on her money.
[QUOTE=hajario]
You have no idea what they did. It could be that they had strong values and refused to support their grandma on what they thought were immoral acts. This, I guess, would be stupid to some and heroic to others.
[/QUOTE]
My father’s mother was a hateful, cruel and selfish woman, who, after how she treated my mother, my sisters and me during her life, I wanted nothing from when she died. She was supposedly quite well-to-do, and I can pretty much guarantee that both of her children (my father and his sister), and all her other grandchildren were included in her will somehow. I never even inquired about it, as I had no interest in one thing that bitch had, and no desire to profit from her death.
For all we know, the 2 excluded Helmsley grandchildren couldn’t give a shit about the old biddy’s money.