Besides gaining more visibility, probate disputes increasingly involve people from across the economic spectrum.  With that, EstateofDenial.com lately has worked to emphasize how the entitlement mindsets and questionable tactics at work in high profile cases are surfacing in other less visible probate actions.  It’s good to understand what’s happening in these “infamous” cases as similar scenarios could sooner or later play out in your life.  We’ll address the Leona Helmsley estate today with Marshall v. Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith’s estate dispute) planned for later this week.

Leona Helmsley, by most accounts, was truly an unpleasant person.  Upon her August 2007 death, it really shouldn’t make a difference yet her widely-acknowledged graceless demeanor does seem to shade discussions regarding the distribution of her assets.  Jeffrey Toobin recently wrote a piece entitled Rich Bitch for The New Yorker.  He describes how Helmsley came to leave her estate, in the form of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust with an estimated value of $3 - 8 billion, “to the provision of care for dogs” along with another catch-all category granting broader discretion to the trustees.  While bringing forth a few new details, the article largely addresses the basics of Helmsley’s life and post-death perspective for distribution of her wealth.  Here are basic analytical points which we took from Toobin’s piece.  This estate provides much to think about so these thoughts are fairly random.

• Jay Panzirer, Leona’s only child (by a marriage prior to Harry), died in 1982 at the age of 40.  Toobin describes how Leona and Harry went after the son’s modest estate despite the fact that he had a wife and four children of his own.  The article says at least six lawsuits were filed in attempts to claim a portion of Panzirer’s estate with Leona Helmsley finally receiving a significant share.  Asset looters come in all shapes, forms and income brackets!

• Helmsley had four grandchildren.  Two were included in her will as well as made executors (along with others) of her estate.  Two were excluded from any inheritance.  The first estate contest came from the two disinherited grandchildren.  We wrote about this at the time. The estate executors settled the dispute quickly by “amending the will.”  The contesting grandchildren’s claim was based on Helmsley’s mental capacity upon signing her 2005 will.  The idea that executors would change a will to include otherwise omitted heirs is cause for concern.  Per news reports, this move was approved by the New York Attorney General as well as a judge.  How is the door not now open for this as a precedent that, when applied irresponsibly or with calculated dishonesty, absolutely jeopardizes the rights of inheritance of the deceased and other potential heirs?  This is exactly the type legal point to likely turn up in other probate disputes as rationalization for discounting clear intentions expressed in a will.

• At the same time as the will “amendment,” the $12 million set aside for the care of Trouble, Helmsley’s Maltese, was reduced to $2 million.  Upon Trouble’s death, any unused money was designated to be transferred into the Helmsley charitable trust.  Why once again, did a legal precedent have to be established in which a decedant’s expressed wishes were disregarded?  In due time, the same outcome would have been achieved yet with a course that included honoring Helmsley’s wishes.  With that, why would a judge blatantly choose to disrespect a person’s final wishes?

• One of Toobin’s revelations involved changes that Helmsley made with regard to the trust’s mission statement.  A first statement listed three goals for the planned expenditures:  first was “to the provision of care for dogs”; second was “the provision of medical and health care services for indigent people, with emphasis on providing care to children”; and a third goal covered “such other charitable activities as the Trustee shall determine.”  The statement was revised six months later with the second provision (medical care for people, especially children) omitted.  So the “Queen of Mean” strikes again.  Can’t you hear it?  Leona Helmsley hates kids and loves dogs.  Maybe she thought children’s causes get sufficient funding.  Maybe she was around some ratty kid that caused her to change her mind.  It doesn’t matter.  It was her money to do with as she saw fit.  If she wanted the dogs to have it, the dogs should get it.  Who is to say “this is your property, but you can’t (legally) do with it as you want”?  That can work in a socialistic state, but some of us are still fighting to keep capitalism alive in the U.S.

• The animal rights movement has an interesting presence in this discussion.  Although the trust appears to not yet be operating or making grants, reports indicate that animal rights activists in New York are assembling proposals in anticipation of upcoming distributions.  People figuratively lining up to put their hand out.  That’s not a becoming image.

• A point was also made that leaving funds to the dogs could help radical animal rights groups better argue for upgrading the legal status of animals so their “rights” are more akin to those of humans.  People absolutely ought to be able to designate that, upon disability or death, certain provisions (including use of funds) take place for the care of specified animals.  To see Helmsley’s attempted good deed be potentially hijacked by animal extremists is unfortunate.

• While Toobin’s article provided interesting perspective with regards to how lawyers and academics view charitable giving, our favorite take on this remains the views of Ray D. Madoff, a professor at Boston College Law School.  In a New York Times op-ed, Professor Madoff contends:  “The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the federal government. The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in every charitable bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley’s case, given that her fortune warranted an estate tax rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for dogs is really a gift of $4.4 billion from her and $3.6 billion from you and me.”  It seems like this is saying the more you have, the more you should give to government and should you elect to do otherwise, poor people dependent upon taxpayer funds are harmed.  Sounds like more socialism.  And if this is current law school ideology passed on to tomorrow’s lawyers and judges, rights of inheritance along with any other property rights are seriously in danger.

As said before, Leona Helmsley’s reputation of a rude, mean and arrogant woman was likely deserved.  Regardless, though, an ugly personality isn’t grounds to usurp basic property rights.  Her estate plan is characterized by Vartan Gregorian, president of the Carnegie Corporation, as “individualism carried to iconography” with a conclusion of how this “tells you something about her and about the times in which we live.”  It absolutely does tell a lot, but Mr. Gregorian would doubtfully agree with our interpretation.  From the EstateofDenial.com perspective, we believe Helmsley’s act of generosity says we like dogs, we’ll do what we want with our money and when you have so many people making snarky comments about what you do with money that is yours (not the government’s or anyone else’s), the dogs have an ever increasing appeal!