explainer
columns
- The 500,000 Artifacts of George Washington
How did archaeologists find half a million objects at one site?
Jacob Leibenluft
posted July 3, 2008 - Secret Muslims
Are Muslims allowed to hide their faith?
Juliet Lapidos
posted July 2, 2008 - The Spam Superhighway
What's "Port 25," and what does it have to do with Internet junk mail?
Chris Wilson
posted July 1, 2008 - Hostage Rescue for Tots
What was a 3-year-old doing at a paramilitary simulation exercise?
Jacob Leibenluft
posted June 30, 2008 - Rent-a-Hive
How much does it cost to borrow a colony of honeybees?
Jacob Leibenluft
posted June 27, 2008 - Search for more explainer articles
- Subscribe to the explainer RSS feed
- View our complete explainer archive
The $12 Million MalteseCan Leona Helmsley's heirs contest her will?
By Michelle TsaiPosted Thursday, Aug. 30, 2007, at 6:41 PM ET

Deceased billionaire Leona Helmsley left $12 million for what appears to be the care of her dog Trouble, according to documents (PDF) released Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Queen of Mean left her brother $15 million and two of her grandkids $10 million each, but she cut two other grandkids out from the inheritance "for reasons which are known to them." How do you contest a will?
Prove that it wasn't properly signed or that the deceased was under coercion or mentally incapacitated. A probate court could rule the will invalid if Helmsley had been threatened, tricked into thinking she was signing another document, or had her signature forged. Otherwise, relatives in search of a bigger payout would need to show that Helmsley signed in good faith but didn't understand what she was doing.
The hotelier's mental faculties had weakened in recent years, and she'd turned over control of her real-estate company to a team of lawyers. But it's not clear that Helmsley couldn't make informed decisions back in 2005, when she made her will. (Even someone who's generally demented can make a valid signature if she's having what's called a lucid moment.) She signed the will in front of three witnesses, who were supposed to withhold their signatures if they knew she wasn't of sound mind. To convince the court that Helmsley was mentally incapacitated, one might need to prove that the witnesses were mistaken—or that they were themselves incapacitated.
If the heirs can't invalidate the will, they might still be able to get their hands on Trouble's money. If Helmsley provided for the dog under what's called a "statutory pet trust," then a court can rule that some of the $12 million should be redistributed. In New York, a statutory pet trust can be challenged if it "substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use." If a judge decides to shift money out of the trust, it's more likely to end up going to her charitable trust than to her relatives, since that's where the bulk of her property—worth a reputed $2.5 billion—went. On the other hand, if Helmsley set up a traditional pet trust for Trouble, the courts would be less likely to reduce its size.* (Statutory trusts provide more court supervision and can be very easy to draw up, but they're not available everywhere.)
Without a successful challenge, the $12 million trust can easily generate $600,000 a year in income for the dog. But what will happen to the money left over when Trouble finally joins Helmsley and her husband in their million-dollar mausoleum?
We can't know for sure, since the trust (unlike the will) isn't a public document. We do know from the will that the money in the trusts for her grandchildren and brother will go to her charitable trust after they die; the pet trust might be set up in the same way. In the meantime, Trouble joins the ranks of trust-fund pets like Rodeo, a Shar-Pei that received a $100,000 trust from tobacco heiress Doris Duke. British pop star Dusty Springfield provided for her cat Nicholas with a very specific set of instructions in her will. He was to be given baby food, a bed lined with her nightgown, and the opportunity to "marry" another cat. Her songs were also to be played to him each night.
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Gerry Beyer of the Texas Tech University School of Law, Steve Hartnett of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys, and Michael Whitty of Winston & Strawn.
Correction, Aug. 31, 2007: The article originally said courts would not be able to reduce the size of traditional pet trusts. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
Remarks from the Fray:
find out who the guardian of the dog is and you'll find out the real story here. That's who's going to get the most of the benefit of the money. Apparently, the dog made a good front for some unknown reason to transfer a lot of money. Do dogs pay taxes on it? That's what needs explaining.
--doodahman
(To reply, click here.)
(9/2)
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Beaver Overthinking Dam
Sun, 06 Jul 2008 01:00:00 -0400 - U.S. Ice Cubes Melting At Alarming Rate
Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:00:00 -0400 - Bush Vows To Remove Toxic Petroleum From National Parks
Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:00:00 -0400 - » More from the Onion
Capturing The FlagMarc Leepson | From Lincoln's campaign posters to barbeque aprons, the Stars and Stripes sells.
- Today's Headlines
- Q&A: Iranian Diplomat on Tehran’s Role in Iraq
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:57:21 GMT - A popular July 4th anthem isn't actually American
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:06:40 GMT - Clift: Clark’s 3 Mistakes on McCain’s War Service
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:31:18 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Bored on the Fourth of July
Thu, 3 July 2008 15:45:55 GMT - Ballin' Without a Budget
Thu, 3 July 2008 15:30:35 GMT - Page Burners
Thu, 3 July 2008 18:30:29 GMT - » More from The Root

explainer









