Leona Helmsley's Dog Gets $12 Million in Will

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MsMofoGone

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
26,742
Location
Where is not important...
Helmsley's Dog Gets $12 Million in Will
By Associated Press
3 hours ago


NEW YORK - Leona Helmsley's dog will continue to live an opulent life, and then be buried alongside her in a mausoleum. But two of Helmsley's grandchildren got nothing from the late luxury hotelier and real estate billionaire's estate.

Helmsley left her beloved white Maltese, named Trouble, a $12 million trust fund, according to her will, which was made public Tuesday in surrogate court.

She also left millions for her brother, Alvin Rosenthal, who was named to care for Trouble in her absence, as well as two of four grandchildren from her late son Jay Panzirer _ so long as they visit their father's grave site once each calendar year.

Otherwise, she wrote, neither will get a penny of the $5 million she left for each.

Helmsley left nothing to two of Jay Panzirer's other children _ Craig and Meegan Panzirer _ for "reasons that are known to them," she wrote.

But no one made out better than Trouble, who once appeared in ads for the Helmsley Hotels, and lived up to her name by biting a housekeeper.

"I direct that when my dog, Trouble, dies, her remains shall be buried next to my remains in the Helmsley mausoleum," Helmsley wrote in her will.

The mausoleum, she ordered, must be "washed or steam-cleaned at least once a year." She left behind $3 million for the upkeep of her final resting place in Westchester County, where she is buried with her husband, Harry Helmsley.

She also left her chauffeur, Nicholas Celea, $100,000.

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.

Her longtime spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, had no comment.

Helmsley died earlier this month at her Connecticut home. She became known as a symbol of 1980s greed and earned the nickname "the Queen of Mean" after her 1988 indictment and subsequent conviction for tax evasion. One employee had quoted her as snarling, "Only the little people pay taxes."
 
:ohmy:

She's gotta be kidding !! :crazy:

She leaves more to her dog ... than to her chauffer or 2 other grandchildren ?? :shocked:

And what happens to any remaining part of that $12 mil ... once the dog dies ?? :scratch: :huh:
 
Ah, Trouble Helmsley. I've heard that name before.

A few years ago, my sister was interning at the Helen Keller School for the blind and deaf. Leona Helmsley was there one day to make a big donation. My sister sent me this hilarious e-mail about how Helmsley carried this little white dog with her everywhere.

The part I remember the most was about Helmsley giving a speech and saying the donation was in the name of herself, her late husband and - to quote my sister - "you guessed it, the dog! 'Trouble' Helmsley."

So maybe the dog can now use his $12 million to continue his charitable work :wink:.
 
MsMofoGone said:

And what happens to any remaining part of that $12 mil ... once the dog dies ?? :scratch: :huh:

The money was left in trust for the dog, so any leftovers would be covered by trust provisions (might default to her estate, etc).
 
It was her money -- she could, should, and did, do with it whatever she pleased. :shrug:


I would love to know what Craig and Meegan Panzirer did (or didn't do) though. :D
 
Originally posted by anitram
The money was left in trust for the dog, so any leftovers would be covered by trust provisions (might default to her estate, etc).

I wonder if any of that money would go to brother Alvin (instead of her estate) upon Trouble's death ?? :hmm:

Afterall, Alvin is the one who took care of the dog in Leona's absence. :yes:

He's probably still taking care of him now. :up:

So I guess the big Q is ... Will brother Alvin keep Trouble healthy, let alone, alive ?? :ohmy:
 
indra said:
It was her money -- she could, should, and did, do with it whatever she pleased. :shrug:

Agreed, but thats ridiculous, give the maltese to the person who has cared for the dog when she wasnt there and give the 12 mil to that guy..
 
I read this on TMZ today and it just made me kind of ill. Her dog?!!! Why not a worthwhile cause that could really benefit from the money. We know how many HIV patients in Africa this would save, how many mouths the money left that dog would feed. Ugh things like this just really grate my nerves.
 
Originally posted by tpsreports2424
Agreed, but thats ridiculous, give the maltese to the person who has cared for the dog when she wasnt there and give the 12 mil to that guy..

Exactly ... her brother, Alvin, should get it. :up:

Athough it would have been nice if she would have left some money to her other 2 grandchildren, Craig and Meegan.

No matter what happened in the past, she shouldn't have deprived them from her fortune.

That's really pathetic, she should have just forgave them and forgot about whatever rubbed her the wrong way with them.

Indeed, she really did live up to her name ... The Queen Of Mean !! :ohmy:
 
MsMofoGone said:


No matter what happened in the past, she shouldn't have deprived them from her fortune.

Why not??

It's not their fortune, not like they're entitled to it or being deprived of anything.

The ultra-rich leaving fortunes to spoiled grandkids is usually anti-thetical to their hardworking nature and has plagued us with the likes of Paris Hilton. :wink:
 
Originally posted by anitram
The ultra-rich leaving fortunes to spoiled grandkids is usually anti-thetical to their hardworking nature and has plagued us with the likes of Paris Hilton. :wink:

Yes, I suppose that's a truly interesting point. :up:

But, I don't mean the grandchildren should get a huge fortune. I just mentioned before that it would be nice if Leona would have left SOME MONEY to them. You know, just because they were her grandchildren ... or consider it, they were part of her family. Afterall, she left her chauffer $100 grand ... and that was her chauffer for goodness sake. He was in no way ... considered family. So again, I think it is rather pathetic still ... that she left them nothing. :sad:
 
I think those who complain that the $12 million she left to her dog should have gone to charity instead should re-read this bit:

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.

Billions to a charitable trust. I think that's pretty damned good. How many of you that think she should have given more to charity defend a certain short Irish singer dude when he spends extravagantly? I mean, that could all go to treat poor AIDS infected Africans too.

Take a look at this snippet from Philanthropy.com Apparently she also donated quite generously to various charities and causes during her lifetime also.

Hotel Mogul Leaves Billions to Charitable Trust

By Maria DiMento

In what could well be one of the most-generous bequests of the decade, Leona M. Helmsley has left much of her estate — worth billions of dollars — to a charitable trust.

Ms. Helmsley, head of the Helmsley Hotel Chain, died this month of heart failure. Her estate has been estimated to be worth between $4-billion and $8-billion.

While she had a reputation among her hotel employees for having a terrifying temper, Ms. Helmsley apparently had a charitable side: Through her will, she directed that all of her assets, including cash from the sale of her homes and other property, be given to the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Ms. Helmsley created the trust in 1999, according to the will. She does not name any nonprofit groups or specific causes as beneficiaries.

Gifts that Ms. Helmsley made during her lifetime included a total of $70-million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and $5-million to the American Red Cross to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

In her will, Ms. Helmsley also left approximately $35-million to family members, including $3-million for the upkeep of the mausoleum where she and her late husband, Harry B. Helmsley, are buried, and $12-million to a trust for her dog, Trouble.

A copy of the will, which was signed in July 2005, is posted on the Web site of the New York Daily News.
 
Originally posted by Lila64
just be thankful she didn't take it with her :wink: :shifty:

True.

But as for the dog's amount of 12 million ... maybe she should have. :rolleyes:

I mean really ... leaving that in 'a trust' for her dog ?? :tsk:

How would that dog spend any of that money ?? Like he could ?? :huh:

Of course, it's her brother, Alvin who will spend it. :up:

But, every single penny to spend on that dog ?? I highly doubt it will happen. :yes:
 
This isn't that uncommon. It's usually a means to get the money to someone else(the person taking care of the dog) without dealing with certain tax issues. The dog doesn't have to file taxes.

But I love how everyone automatically labels her bitch and evil.
 
I don't know. You have to think that people were probably after her money for years. Her dog was probably her one true companion that didn't care how much money she had or judge her. So it's a rather sweet gesture but also incredibly sad at the same time, not for other people or family that could have used the money, but for Leona Helmsley herself.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
This isn't that uncommon. It's usually a means to get the money to someone else(the person taking care of the dog) without dealing with certain tax issues. The dog doesn't have to file taxes.

But that doesn't really make sense. A trust is a trust, regardless of whether it is for a human or a dog. The executor acts on behalf of the person benefitting from the trust. It is NOT a roundabout way for the executor to benefit financially. So if she wanted the person taking care of the dog to benefit, she would have named him, not the dog, and the executor of that trust would funnel funds to him, again avoiding certain taxation.
 
anitram said:


But that doesn't really make sense. A trust is a trust, regardless of whether it is for a human or a dog. The executor acts on behalf of the person benefitting from the trust. It is NOT a roundabout way for the executor to benefit financially. So if she wanted the person taking care of the dog to benefit, she would have named him, not the dog, and the executor of that trust would funnel funds to him, again avoiding certain taxation.

I'm by no means an expert. I do know some states won't even allow such things, because pets are considered property and property can't own property. But some states have poorly defined laws that allow for such loopholes. All I know is that I've heard of this before and the reasoning was to avoid such taxation. The caretaker can then buy a new car in order to take the dog to the vet, etc... Then when the dog passes they get the money and the interest it's accrued and then have to pay taxes on that. At least that's how the story went...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I'm by no means an expert. I do know some states won't even allow such things, because pets are considered property and property can't own property. But some states have poorly defined laws that allow for such loopholes. All I know is that I've heard of this before and the reasoning was to avoid such taxation. The caretaker can then buy a new car in order to take the dog to the vet, etc... Then when the dog passes they get the money and the interest it's accrued and then have to pay taxes on that. At least that's how the story went...

No, I understand that, but there is no need to do such a thing. If she really wanted to build a trust for the person taking care of the dog, she could have named him in that trust. The ENTIRE point of trusts is to avoid taxation (for a determined period of time, varying by jurisdiction). In other words, she left that $ to the dog because she wanted to, not because it was a means of tax avoidance.
 
anitram said:


The ENTIRE point of trusts is to avoid taxation (for a determined period of time, varying by jurisdiction). In other words, she left that $ to the dog because she wanted to, not because it was a means of tax avoidance.

So is a trust set up differently from a regular inheritance? Like I said, I know very little about this stuff.
 
Originally posted by kellyahern
12 million could buy a lot of snausages.

:lol:

Seriously though ... didn't Trouble eat nothing but 'Gourmet' dog food ?? :up:
I think that pooch can 'afford' to eat human food now ... and say 'so-ooo long' to that dog stuff. :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom