Impact of Helmsley Trust Order

Earlier on this blog, I reported that an order was signed by Surrogate Webber in New York regarding the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust which is the sole residuary beneficiary under Leona’s will.  The court held that “the trustees may apply trust funds for such charitable purposes and in such amounts as they may, in their sole discretion, determine.”

The impact of this decision is discussed in Stephanie Strom, Not All of Helmsley’s Trust Has to Go to Dogs, NY Times, Feb. 26, 2009:

[C]ontrary to her wishes, the billions of dollars that will flow into the charitable trust she created do not have to be spent solely for the care and welfare of dogs. * * *

Experts in trusts and estates had warned that Mrs. Helmsley’s order [in a two-page mission statement] that her fortune be spent promoting canine well-being may not have been legally binding. * * *

The trustees — Mrs. Helmsley’s brother, Alvin Rosenthal; two of her grandsons, Walter and David Panzirer; her lawyer Sandor Frankel; and her longtime friend John Codey — had filed a lengthy motion in court arguing that the mission statement did not limit use of the money, and the New York attorney general’s office filed a similar argument.

Special thanks to Joel Dobris (Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law) for being the first of many readers to bring this article to my attention.