Not All of Helmsley’s Trust Has to Go to Dogs
Published: February 25, 2009

The judge overseeing the probate of the hotelier Leona Helmsley’s will has ruled that, contrary to her wishes, the billions of dollars that will flow into the charitable trust she created do not have to be spent solely for the care and welfare of dogs.

The judge, Troy K. Webber of Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan, said that the trustees who control the trust may distribute the money as they see fit. “The court finds that the trustees may apply trust funds for such charitable purposes and in such amounts as they may, in their sole discretion, determine,” Judge Webber wrote in a ruling dated last Thursday.

Experts in trusts and estates had warned that Mrs. Helmsley’s order that her fortune be spent promoting canine well-being may not have been legally binding. The two-page “mission statement” that contained her instructions also gave the trustees discretion in spending the money, and it was never incorporated into her will or the trust documents.

The trustees — Mrs. Helmsley’s brother, Alvin Rosenthal; two of her grandsons, Walter and David Panzirer; her lawyer Sandor Frankel; and her longtime friend John Codey — had filed a lengthy motion in court arguing that the mission statement did not limit use of the money, and the New York attorney general’s office filed a similar argument.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, Howard J. Rubenstein, a spokesman for the trustees, said they planned to begin making grants from the trust next month. “In the hope that this would be the court’s decision, the trustees have been diligently working to identify potential grantees so that the trust’s funds would be put to optimal use as soon as possible in such areas as health care, medical research, human services, education and various other areas,” Mr. Rubenstein said, pointedly avoiding the mention of dogs.

The trustees, who are also the executors of Mrs. Helmsley’s will, had fretted about the terms of the mission statement, and the public discussion it incited. News that the biggest named beneficiary in Mrs. Helmsley’s will was Trouble, her Maltese, led to death threats against the dog, who now has a security detail costing the estate $100,000 a year. The judge’s decision does not affect Trouble’s inheritance.

Animal lovers around the world were delighted when the terms of the mission statement were reported last year, and many of them wrote the trustees with suggestions about which organizations and programs the trust might support in fulfilling Mrs. Helmsley’s wish. Major animal welfare organizations applauded Mrs. Helmsley, who was known for her sharp tongue and imperious manner. She died in August 2007.

Bernard Unti, senior policy adviser at the Humane Society of the United States, said the judge’s decision was disappointing, though not entirely unexpected. “Whatever the legal status of the mission statement, it certainly signaled a clear intent on Mrs. Helmsley’s part to see the money used to help dogs,” Mr. Unti said. “The animal welfare sector in the United States and abroad is chronically underfunded, and just the annual interest thrown off by an estate this large could do a tremendous amount of good.”

Mrs. Helmsley drafted the mission statement in 2003 to establish goals for the multibillion-dollar trust that would disburse her assets after her death. The first goal was to help indigent people, the second to provide for the care of dogs. A year later, though, Mrs. Helmsley struck the first goal from the statement, effectively devoting the estate primarily to the welfare of dogs — though she did add “and such other charitable activities as the trustees shall determine.”

Mr. Unti noted that bequests made for the purposes of furthering animal welfare generally have a hard time surviving the probate process. As far back as the latter half of the 19th century, a bequest of real estate valued at more than $100,000 to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was contested by the donor’s heirs, who claimed he was insane. In that case, the court upheld the donor’s wish.

In another prominent example, Doris Duke, the tobacco heiress, left her money to support the arts and for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children. “The trustees apparently said, ‘Oh, well, she said animals or children, not animals and children, so let’s do just children,’ ” Mr. Unti said.

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.