Pet Trusts – Ensuring Your Pet’s Care

By Amy Fernandez

Another dog joined the ranks of the New York’s wealthy elite last week when Monster Girl II, a black and tan longhaired Chihuahua, inherited $100,000. Her owner, Muriel Siebert, died August 27, 2013 at age 84.  The terms of her will, which includes a generous bequest, designated a personal friend as Monster Girl’s caretaker. It sounds like a lot for one tiny Chihuahua, but it’s a fraction of Siebert’s estimated at $48 million fortune.

Siebert arrived in New York in 1954 after dropping out college because of her family’s precarious financial situation. Defying all odds, she not only broke into the male dominated world of high finance, she fought her way to the top and became a major player. In the process, she made headlines more than once. In 1967 her efforts to purchase a seat on the New York Stock Exchange evolved into a two-year battle. She succeeded, but the experience intensified her commitment to combat social conventions that prevented women from achieving success in this field. Throughout her career, she fought the discriminatory policies and sexist attitudes responsible for those roadblocks. Her tough demeanor was a product of her life and she reveled in media profiles that portrayed her as brash, scrappy, and impervious to intimidation. Her work was her life, but she found time for her beloved Chihuahuas. And it’s easy to understand her empathy for a breed that’s equally celebrated for its diminutive size and indomitable spirit.  Her Chihuahua companions became a familiar presence on Wall Street.

Realizing that Monster Girl II was destined to outlive her, she ensured her welfare with a generous provision in her will. Contrary to some reports, she did not bequeath millions to dog rescue. Most will go to the Muriel Siebert Foundation to continue funding humanitarian causes that she generously supported during her lifetime. The amount allocated for her pet trust made headlines but it’s a relatively small portion of Siebert’s estate.

Most states have recognized the legality of  pet trusts since 1993 when the Uniform Probate Code was amended to permit them.  Prior to that, trusts that did not designate human beneficiaries were automatically invalid because animals are legally defined as property without legal standing. Since then, they have become a routine aspect of estate planning.  Generally, owners designate a caretaker to take custody of the animal and assume responsibility for its needs. These are usually specified in detail. Along with instructions about the animal’s daily routine and veterinary care, they often include special provisions to ensure that elderly pets are not relocated or multiple pets are not separated. Most trusts are activated upon the owner’s death. These are known as testamentary trusts. It’s also possible to make provisions for a pet through inter vivos trusts that commence if an owner becomes unable to care for an animal due to chronic illness or age-related complications.

These measures have minimized the all too common possibility of pets being euthanized or abandoned by unsympathetic family members. But pet trusts are not foolproof. Experts recommend obtaining verified confirmation from designated caretakers in advance, and naming alternative choices if their situation changes before the trust takes effect. It’s also wise to assign separate trustees to allocate money and supervise the pet’s ongoing welfare. They should have the power to intervene if the animal is neglected or the trust stipend is spent inappropriately. Trustees should also be authorized to verify the pet’s identity through via permanent identification. Caretakers have substituted ringers to conceal the demise of trust fund pets and keep the money tap flowing. These hazards are generally limited to cases of ultra-wealthy eccentrics like Doris Duke and Leona Helmsley who leave vast fortunes to their pets. Even then, the rule of perpetuity provides a failsafe mechanism to minimize misappropriation by automatically invalidating trust funds 21 years after the individual’s death. Unless other arrangements are specified in the will, any money remaining in the account then goes to the decedent’s legally-recognized next of kin.

Family members often pose the biggest challenge to pet trusts. They can petition to have the amount reduced and courts frequently invalidate pet trusts that are deemed excessive.  Leona Helmsley’s $12 million dollar bequest to her Maltese remains the iconic example. The family contested and the judge agreed that 12 million was far more than one Maltese could possibly require – even if its name was Trouble. In 2008, Trouble’s inheritance was chopped down to a paltry $2 million. Most of us don’t have the means to excessively endow a pet trust. The average amount is  $25,000, which is usually more than adequate to ensure good care for the duration of an animal’s anticipated lifespan. If you are considering this option, it pays to consult a savvy estate planner. They can explain the wide range of possible options and help you fine-tune the arrangement to best ensure the welfare of your pets.

Most of the legislative reforms that seek to expand the legal rights of animals are costly, pointless measures fueled by misanthropic animal rights agendas.  In contrast, pet trusts can offer a practical solution to a common dilemma for many dog owners.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=34321

Posted by chesliepickett on Sep 25 2013. Filed under Featured, The Buzz. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.