At the end of June another story broke of a billionaire bequeathing a fortune to the family pets. In this instance, MSNBC has the report of heiress Gail Posner leaving $3 million and continued use of her mansion to her Chihuahua Conchita, only giving $1 million to her son.
The son, Brett Carr, claims that his mother’s staff brainwashed her in the last years of her life into leaving her fortune to her pets, and by extension, them. Some members of the staff have been retained to take care of Conchita and two other dogs in Posner’s mansion. They will continue to lavish the dogs with a lifestyle that previously earned Conchita the title of World’s Most Pampered Dog.
Of course this brings to the fore the old debate on whether or not it should be legal – or even if it’s moral – to leave one’s money to pets. Every so often stories like this emerge and the debate rages again.
Whenever I hear these stories I always think that, well, obviously the money isn’t left directly to the animals. It’s not like they have a bank account. The money must be going to a human, so what’s stopping that person from using the money for his or her own ends?
I’m sure there are legal safeguards in place to prevent something like that from happening, but I still can’t help wondering about it. What I also want to know is how much the pets get: do they receive the entire fortune or just a portion?
If I thought I might die before my pets I would want to leave some safeguards in place to make sure they were taken care of, though I’m hoping that I’d have family I could trust to do that without stipulations made in my will. So on one end I can sympathize with billionaires who want to ensure their pets’ continued well-being.
However, it is ridiculous to leave large portions of money to an animal that can’t enjoy it and probably barely notices all of the pampering it receives (like Conchita’s wigs and $15,000 necklaces). Money should be left to those for whom it has meaning, when it could do so much good elsewhere.
Instead of bequeathing an actual fortune to pets, billionaires ought to leave their money to those they trust to look after the pets, perhaps with a requirement that a certain percentage of the funds go to the pet’s care.
In Gail Posner’s case, not all of her money is going to her dog. She actually left the majority of her fortune to a mix of her personal trainers, bodyguards, and other staff.
I’m guessing that the son received less money because, despite his claims, he was less in his mother’s confidence than those who actually looked after her. Carr’s likely only protesting the money left to the dogs because that’s what’s easiest to protest.
This individual case aside, I can certainly sympathize with those who leave money to look after their pets, though I think it’s crazy that they seem to think that their pets will need millions of dollars in care. These are often the people who spend that much money on their pets in life, however, so I think that is more the issue than money left in the will.
What such pet-loving millionaires/billionaires really ought to do, however, if they want to support animal well-being, is leave money to a pet-friendly charity. I’m sure Conchita will not miss her $15,000 necklace, and her homeless brethren would definitely appreciate the help.
Related Articles:
What You Can Do for Animal Shelters
Cities Adopt Pet Store Ban
HAPPY: Pet Exemption Bill Introduced in Congress