Have you heard? Leona Helmsley willed her entire estate to animal rights groups.
Animal activists rejoiced when word came out that Helmsley's will specified that her multi-billion-dollar hotel and real estate empire should go entirely to dog-related charities.
But her trustees didn't agree, so in February, got a judge to rule that the trustees had sole authority to decide which charities benefit from her estate. As of this report, one million will go to dogs, while $135 million will go to non-dog charities that the trustees choose.
I hope someone with the know-how, the contacts, and the political clout to reverse this decision will become outraged enough to do so. Even if dog charities weren't the issue, I can't see how any judge can have the right to make a decision such as this.
No matter what Mrs. Helmsley had wanted to give her money to, it was her money and her right to dispose of any way she saw fit. I think the trustees who will no doubt get a good chunk of that money should have both a legal and a moral obligation to carry out her wishes. And I think the judge should be tossed off the bench for presuming to have a right to rule differently.
What do you think?
Does a judge have a right to tell trustees they don't have to follow the will?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Astrocious! "Does a judge have a right to tell trustees they don't have to follow the will? " My answer is a NO!!! What are wills for then?
Exactly - People write will so their property will be dispersed according to their wishes. Unless there's clear evidence that someone was coerced into signing everything over to some crook, no one should be able to act against that will.
Looks like some judges think they have that right. I just hope someone in Ms. Helmsley's family or circle of friends will raise a holy stink and get that decision reversed. Letting it stand sets a precedent that is harmful to everyone.
Post a Comment