Inspired, of course, by the news of Carrie Fisher’s death. Her adorably dorky French Bulldog, Gary, was actually a therapy dog. What happens to these animals when their person dies? Do they get reassigned to a new person for therapy or service? Or do they get adopted by a family member of the person they worked with or taken to the shelter if no one wants them, like any pet?
(Yes, I know therapy animals and service animals are different, but I’m curious about both.)
I think that if the person knew they were doing (cancer, heart disease, etc) they might be able to will the dog to another member of their family, not sure what happens for an unexpected death.
Do the organizations that supply the dogs have retained ownership of them?
I’ve heard of cases where a friend or relative adopts the dog.
At least in my state, you can’t will a pet to someone else. Unless the pet has value, in which case it’s treated as property. However, if the dog is a pet, it has no value and you can leave instructions either to the executor or to a family member for the transfer for the pet. These instructions are not legally binding.
(My mother always assumed she’d predecease me, except when it came to the dog. “If you die before me, I want the dog.” dear God, she kept sending me cute little outfits – mostly hats – for a 90 pound shepher-husky mix. Anyway, when I updated my will I asked. No go.)
Service dogs are often retired when they get too old to serve. Just like people, only a crappier end.
Alice Vachss’s first therapy dog was a German shepherd/wolfe mix named Sheba. She was working with sexually abused children at the time, and Sheba ended up being the first of the therapy dogs in the Vachss’s program. Children who wouldn’t dare tell a person what happened to them would talk to the dog.
Anecdotally (based on news stories, an article about police dogs and their departments, and what happens in our own police department) police dogs (not quite the same, but they’re trained, expensive, and attached to one particular person) are most often retired from the force and adopted by the closest partner of the officer they used to work with, or their trainer.
I also remember seeing a story on TV about seeing-eye dogs, and in the program they were covering, the dogs DO get re-assigned all the time (not only because of deaths) because there are so few of them, and they try to use them as a stepping-stone to getting the blind person to grow comfortable with going solo using a cane.
This is a real surprise to me. What state is that?
Are you sure that your lawyer wasn’t concerned that someone would reject the bequest? That’s a real risk if the person you want to leave your pet to decides he or she doesn’t want your beloved Floofy.
In most states, you can bequeath your pet to someone after you die but you can’t leave money to your pet. To get around this last part, most states have adopted laws allowing you to set up a trust to fund the care and maintenance of your pet after you die.
My husband and I have cats, and the way our lawyer explained it to us is that we can either -
or we could go the more complicated route that actually guarantees (as much as such things are possible) that the pets are cared for til they pass on themselves;
He said that by having multiple trustees, that made it more likely that someone’s life circumstances work out for keeping the cats, and that they can switch them around as stuff changes rather than feel trapped, and that offering a stipend (cat support payments) for the caretaking trustee makes it easier on them also.
It often depends on how old the animal is. If the animal is young, they will usually be reassigned, and this is especially true of Seeing-Eye™, and other dogs for the bind, because the dogs represent so many hours of special selection and training. If the dog is four, and has several years of service left, it will be reassigned, but if it is eight, and close to retirement, it will be retired.
Therapy dogs rely on the bonding between the owner and the animal, and sometimes a rehomed animal does not make a good therapy dog-- also, if a dog is past its prime, many people will not want it as a therapy dog, because a dog older than about seven, with only a few years left (unless it’s a Chihuahua) may be more anxiety provoking than soothing.
At least, that’s my experience. I have been a social worker dealing extensively with disabled people, and I have rehomed a few service dogs.
Thank you for the answers! I learned a lot from all of them.
TMZ is reporting today that Gary, specifically, is going home with Carrie’s daughter, who has a French Bulldog with whom Gary is friends, so I hope that works out for them. (They also refer to Gary as a support animal, which is a whole third category of animal helpers, and more specific to one person than either a service or therapy dog.)
Leona Helmsley’s maltese Trouble was bequeathed $12 million, in what might be the greatest fuck-you bequest ever, thoroughly redeeming the woman in my book.
Obviously something must have been legally binding.
According to the dog’s obit,
In 2008, a judge determined that the greater amount exceeded that necessary to care for the dog. Trouble’s inheritance was whittled to $2 million, an amount, Mr. Lekic [general manager of the Helmsley Sandcastle Hotel] said in an affidavit, that would ensure Trouble received “the highest standard of care.”
Mr. Lekic put Trouble’s yearly expenses at $190,000. Her security team cost $100,000 yearly, her grooming $8,000, her food $1,200 and her medical expenses — she had kidney problems — $2,500 to $18,000, he said. Mr. Lekic’s guardian fee was $60,000. In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust said on Thursday that the money remaining for Trouble’s care had reverted to the trust for “charitable purposes.”
This is how I understand it works in most states if you want to provide for your pets after you die. Option 2 comes with some administrative expenses but it’s probably more reliable than the first option. There are plenty of variations on the conditions for option 2. For example, the trust could specify that the stipend stops when the pet dies and provides no residual for the caretaker. That gives the caretaker an incentive to keep the animal alive as long as possible. Of course, then you have to be concerned that the person won’t put the pet down if he or she is suffering. You could have a trustee monitor the animal’s life and make judgments about whether the pet is well-cared for but then the caretaker is subject to intrusive evaluations by the trustee. There is no perfect solution.
Leona Helmsley bequeathed money for her dog but not to her dog. She set up a trust for her dog as Lasciel described. The dog didn’t actually inherit anything. Dogs can’t own property or inherit anything.
Yes, you’re correct; I simply skipped over Lasciel, and went to my brilliant reply post before reading his or the rest of the thread.
I do that a lot, sadly.
I could put the dog in the will or a letter of instruction as a bequest, but unlike instructions for a minor child or propertu, it was not legally binding on the executor to execute for the dog. If I had a horse for example, or cattle, they would be property and I could have written them in the will. There was some agricultural bias in the state laws, but pet were right out as they had no cash value. I never pursued a trust fun dsince, I didn’t think the executor to have any problems finding a home for the dog. She was an amazing dog.
Anyway, she predeceased me, and I’m dogless now, so I don’t have to worry about it.
True, but it doesn’t make this headline any less funny.
I am confused- are you saying that in your state ( BTW, which is it?) if I leave my dog to my sister in my will the executor has no duty to follow my will and can completely disregard my wishes and give the dog to my brother, or put the dog in a shelter or euthanize the dog? Can the executor similarly disregard my wished if I leave my sister my collection of paperback books that also has no cash value?
I’m not talking about whether it would it would be worthwhile for my sister to attempt to force the executor to follow the directives in my will- it would probably require a lawsuit and therefore not be worthwhile in either the case of the dog or the dishes or any other items with little or no cash value. But saying it’s not practical to force the executor to fulfill his duty is very different from saying he has no duty to begin with.
Is anyone else reading ‘therapy’ in Sean Connery’s voice?
Doreen, you gotta think legally speaking.
A will is designed to give your stuff to the people who outlive you, in a specific way that you decide, rather than what the basic system decides is appropriate. Wills aren’t designed to deal with living things, or continuing actions. A will just says, when I die, I want Suzy to have my china and Roger to get my silver and Kent gets my house.
There’s nothing in your will saying that Suzy and Roger and Kent can’t turn around immediately and sell your china to buy pot, hawk your silver on eBay to fund his vacation, and demolish your house to build a McMansion on the now-empty lot.
Right?
To a will, legally speaking, your pets are ALSO things. You can give them to anyone, but a will isn’t the right legal tool to make sure that they continue being cared for.
I don’t disagree with what you said- but the person I was replying to said that in her state, pets are not treated as property. She wasn’t saying that if I left my dog to Mary that the dog then becomes Mary’s property and Mary could then sell the dog or give it away or do whatever she chose, just as Roger, Suzy and Kent can do whatever they want with the china, silver and house I left to them. She was saying that Bill, who I named the executor of my will , had no obligation to give my dog to Mary and presumably could do whatever he wanted with the dog- including keeping it himself or giving it to Roger, Suzy or Kent. That is what I’m questioning- whether Bill actually has the right to do that or if it is simply impractical to prevent him from doing that.
Ahh, gotcha. Is the executor legally required to execute the will as its stated. I misunderstood. Yeah that part I don’t know. You’d think it would make sense for them to be bound to it, but legal stuff rarely matches up with common sense. I have the feeling if they decided not to, the only recourse would be for the survivors to sue them for the lapse in civil court if they cared enough.
Course, unfortunately that’s how it is for a lot of contractual obligations.