Estate and trust litigation can occur for a variety of reasons. A trust fund dog named ‘Winnie the Pooh’ experienced this first hand. There, the trust manager and the pet’s new caretaking fought over the frequency and amount of money distributed from the trust.
The dog’s owner had set up a trust for $100,000 for the dog with the remainder for an animal hospital. The dog’s caretaker reportedly ended up having to sue the estate’s executor after he allegedly failed to make trust payments for the dog’s care. The caretaker further alleged that the executor had refused to provide records relating to the trust and the pet’s medical history, and that the executor was favoring the remainder beneficiary. The executor denied the allegations and blamed the caretaker for the confusion.
The merits of a case like this will depend largely on the fiduciary’s legal obligations under the law and the specific terms of the trust. Of importance would be the degree of discretion afforded to the trustee in the trust instrument for making payments. The parties should retain records to support their position, including copies of letters, payments, receipts, demands, refusals, and bank records. Relying on ‘he said, she said’ evidence will end up costing both sides a lot in legal fees, and it may even significantly reduce the trust if the judge awards attorney’s fees out of it.
Family members or remainder beneficiaries may also attempt to challenge a pet trust that leaves a large sum of money to a pet. Leona Helmsley left twelve million dollars in trust to her “beloved Maltese, Trouble.” The court held that twelve million dollars was excessive and reduced the amount to only two million dollars.
Another owner reportedly left $4,761,346 in trust for two cats (see Matter of Abels, 44 Misc 3d 485 [Sur Ct, Westchester County 2014]). The executor of the will argued that based on the cats’ life expectancy and estimated costs, the amount of the trust should be reduced to $440,000. The executor also argued that by selling the mansion and relocating the cats to a smaller residence, the tax liability could be reduced and the charities could receive more.
The judge denied the executor’s request to reduce the trust. The judge held that the decedent’s intent was clear and should be followed. The judge reasoned that the pet owner wanted the cats to live in the house they were comfortable in and made specific arrangements for this. The judge concluded that it was not the court’s place to “rewrite the decedent’s will” and to give more to the charities than the decedent intended.
Luckily, justice prevailed for these cats. They were able to stay in their mansion and enjoy their lives in luxury.