Comments on: ‘Queen of Mean’ loved her dog

By: Schnauzer

Schnauzer — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:18:16 +0000

OK so maybe 12 million is a bit much, but what would constitute “ample”??? My late rescue ACE ran through $2000 the first six months we had him.

I don’t think I have spent $2000 lifetime on “non-routine” expenses on any of my other dogs (and knock on wood we don’t need to…)

A (divorced, no kids, one sister) lawyer friend of mine says he has a trust set up for his dogs. They go back to the breeder who gets a monthly payment from the trust for “routine expenses” The breeder may place the dogs if she finds a suitable home, the stipened goes with them. The trustee (a vet) will authorize expenses beyond the routine expenses covered by the stipened. Anything left in the trust after the dogs are gone goes to the local animal shelter.

By: Carol PW

Carol PW — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:17:55 +0000

My sister and I have mutual arrangements for care of our pets, with my husband as backup in case both she and I (and probably our dogs who always travel with us) are taken out at once. And Gina, if Christie let us know Clara was looking for a new home (or that Velocity was at a rescue) I know there would be at least two homes on offer. You have taken very good care of our pets and it would be reciprocated.

By: Serijna

Serijna — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:33:32 +0000

Probably a very lonely Queen of Mean after hubby died.
Anybody who disinherits some of the grand children but leaves a hundred grand to a chauffeur and 12 mil to her dog, cannot be all that mean IMO, just lonely with very few real friends .
May she rest in peace.
Personally, I think she was a great lady and clever entrepreneur.
As to fed. income tax evasion, we are probably all quilty of that.
They, the government, waste most of it any way. Either indirectly ended up in their own pockets or fancy benefits, or thru silly pork projects in order to get re-elected again.

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:06:29 +0000

I think she had her reasons - maybe the grandkids felt she owed them her money and would live on easy street. Maybe she felt they needed a life lesson, especially since the other two rec’d an inheritance.

I also would have liked seeing her leave some money to a rescue org.

We too have our pets taken care of via our will. Lawyer didn’t bat an eyelash at all. Dogs will go back to their breeders with money for their care both medical and everyday needs.
I think it is becoming a more common practice.

Katie

By: Lis

Lis — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:20:31 +0000

I have to disagree with how you characterize the article, Gina (unless it’s been changed, which is quite possible.) It says she did leave money to two of the grandchildren, and excluded the other two, her will says, for “reasons that are known to them”—phrasing that pretty clearly suggests that they were beastly to her, or at least that there was some longstanding conflict with those two individuals, rather than generalized hostility to people.

And the two grandchildren that did inherit have to visit the grave of their late father, her son, annually—suggesting that there’s some real love and grief, there.

To me, it didn’t come off at all as “people who like pets don’t like people.” The surprise in this article is that Leona Helmsley, the Queen of Mean, cared about living beings other than herself.:)