Oh my! Oprah’s dogs to get $30 million
By Gina Spadafori
September 12, 2007
You thought Leona Hemsley’s dog had it good? Oprah’s dogs have it better.
At least, that’s the word from Women’s Day, which reports that the O-pack is set to get $30 million if they outlive their dog-loving owner.
But let’s keep things in perspective. A friend of the Famous One notes that in fact $30 million isn’t really that much to the empire that is Oprah, consider her net worth is measured in the billions.
I wonder if I could leave her my pets?
Hey, I guess for $30 million I might be able to learn to fetch, sit, and stay. Not to sure about rollover or beg. Of course, my ex- didn’t have much luck with ANY of them!
Comment by michelle — September 12, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
I don’t get this trend at all. Animals are property. Why not leave them to someone you trust rather than leave them a trust fund? And leave that person the money to care for them and carry out your wishes. This person should agree to take on this responsibility and the ownership of the animal as well as the money. These provisions and expectations should be agreed upon by all parties before they are even put in the will. The animal will need a new owner, not a guardian and a trust fund. If there is no one capable or willing to take this responsibility on, I’m sure the dog’s breeder would step up and do it without the inheritance. I am sure Opra’s dogs were purchased from a breeder.
Comment by trucorgi — September 12, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
Comment by trucorgi — September 12, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
“If there is no one capable or willing to take this responsibility on, I’m sure the dog’s breeder would step up and do it without the inheritance.”
That statement would hold true if the dog was obtained from a breeder who follows Responsible Breeding practices. Yet another reason why the world would be a better place if the only dogs and cats being produced were being produced by Responsible Breeders.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 13, 2007 @ 5:50 am
Isn’t Oprah a breeder of yellow Labs? If all the dogs came from her, then doesn’t it make sense to give her kennel a trust fund so that the dogs can live out their days in the place that they were born, with their relatives, no matter if they were born just a few years before Oprah passes?
Comment by Dorene — September 13, 2007 @ 8:24 am
The article didn’t really explain the reasoning, but I can imagine that the plan would be for the animals to stay together where they are instead of having to be separated into different homes.
As far as a trust, I’m not sure, but I would think leaving the money to the animal gives the court more control if there is evidence of neglect or abuse by a guardian. If the money is left to one person with the provision that they care for the animals — that person could use the money for themselves until caught, and there might not be any required paperwork to prove that they used the money themselves. If there is a trust in the animal’s name, then monies can only be dispensed for itemized purchases relating to the animals’ needs, and the guardian’s job would be to care for the animals AND keep the books. If there is any question of neglect, the trust might provide better protection and documentation.
All of the cats that I’ve ever owned came off the street, and trying to find a new home for a cat is not easy. Oprah got her dogs from a breeder, but I imagine the dogs would be very happy to stay where they are instead of going back to the breeder. Oprah has earned enough money to support her dogs/other animals for life and still have lots of money left over to leave to all the charities that she helps. I wish I could do the same for my animals, but I do hope to leave them and their guardian enough to make them comfortable for their lifetime.
Comment by shadepuppy — September 13, 2007 @ 11:17 am