The Benevolent Queen of Mean
When billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley died on August 7, 2007 at the age of 87, there were no prayer vigils outside her hotels nor did the masses tearfully gather in her send off. Instead, both big people and little people alike read the headlines which trumpeted that the wicked witch was dead. The reflections and remembrances all seemed to vilify the “Queen of Mean,” and recounted her tyrannical behavior, her mistreatment of employees and her stint in jail for tax fraud. Once her Last Will and Testament was made public, her dog, “Trouble”, captured the headlines.
But lost in the media blitz was an enormous act of goodwill. Leona gave back, in mammoth proportions to charitable causes which will likely fund hospitals, health care providers, museums, schools, medical research and yes, animals, in perpetuity. Such largess didn’t grab the headlines. Were such acts of benevolence an attempt to curry favor with our Maker, or to spite individuals who wouldn’t inherit the motherload? Did she only seek to reduce her estate tax liability or was she truly philanthropic? In the end, only she knows. But if homeless families have shelter, if cures for diseases are discovered, if lands are preserved, animals cared for and the hungry fed – in part from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Foundation – then we little people must give the devil her do.
Daughter of a hat-maker and high school drop-out, Leona Mindy Rosenthal Roberts Panzirer Lubin Helmsley started at the bottom, but with drive, smarts, determination and sheer moxie, she became one of New York’s more successful real estate brokers. That drive, that moxie that something caught the eye of real estate magnate Harry Helmsley. By 1972, Harry Helmsley already one of the largest real estate owners in Manhattan, was smitten by Leona, and left his wife Eve of 33 years to marry this up-and-comer. Once on top of, and seemingly in control of Helmsley Enterprises as Chairwomen and Chief Executive, Leona ruled with a notoriously heavy hand. Together, Harry and Leona owned, in whole or part, the Empire State Building, 230 Park Avenue, the Tudor City apartment Complex, the New York Helmsley Hotel, The Ritz Carlton hotels, The Helmsley Windsor, the Harley Hotel chain, The Carlton House hotels, the Helmsley Middletowne and as well as various Florida resorts to name only a few of the properties collectively valued at approximately $5,000,000,000 give or take.
Though prior to marriage Harry lived a quiet, humble lifestyle, after the marriage to Leona they lived a lifestyle worthy of royalty. Their residences which included a nine-room New York City penthouse with a swimming pool overlooking Central Park; a private estate in Greenwich Connecticut called Dunnellen Hall, a Palm Beach getaway and a mountaintop hideaway near Phoenix. Add in the 100 seat private jet complete with a bedroom, a chauffer, a chef for Trouble, and unlimited purchasing power and, well, you could understand why she’d be wild about Harry. But good fortune, fame and power didn’t bring out the best of Leona. Instead she nickel-and-dimed merchants, stiffed contractors and publically terrorized employees. Granted, not everyone has read How to Win Friends and Influence People, and some just don’t have bedside manner – but Leona was different.
A reporter Ransdell Pierson published a book entitled, The Queen of Mean and in it he quoted His Honor, Mayor Ed Koch who called Leona, the “Wicked Witch of the West” and added, for “a billionaires to be so chintzy distresses people … the things she did are so vile”, you know her image needed a makeover. Maybe she just needed finishing school. Even The Donald tried to show his softer side when he described her as a sick women and added, “ I can feel sorry for my worst enemy, but I cannot feel sorry for Leona Helmsley.” But Mayor Koch and Donald Trump actually echoed the sentiments of the masses,. It was her behavior, and her tyrannical abuse of power that would cause people to come together, to get her back, to expose her and to testify against her. She made their job easy.
Apparently Leona bought $40,000 of jewelry at Van Cleef and Arpels, and was unwilling to pay New York City sales tax. That tidbit leaked into the pages of the New York Times and consequently, Leona was required to testify in front of two state Grand Juries. Thereafter, a general contracting firm which oversaw the $8,000,000 renovation of Dunnellen Hall had to sue to get paid. During the litigation it was alleged that, though his company billed the renovation costs to the Helmsley’s personally, Leona ordered that the invoices be “fixed” so the renovations would instead be billed to Helmsley Hotels or Helmsley Enterprises. Once “fixed” the renovations became deductions on the corporate income tax returns. Knowingly filing false income tax returns could be a real problem – just ask Al Capone. Turned out that this disgruntled contractor sent a stack of “fixed” invoices to Ransdell Pierson, then a NY Post reporter who inked two articles about the way the Helmsley’s did business. It wasn’t long after these articles landed on a prosecutors desk that investigation started and eventually lead to The New York State Attorney General’s Office and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office working together to secure indictments. Harry and Leona were in serious legal trouble with the IRS, faced jail time if convicted and their reputations were about to irreparably tarnished.
Though it took three years, eventually the Helmsley’s were indicted. In The People of the State of New York v. Leona M. Helmsley et al, she faced a 188 count indictment filed by the State and a 47 Count indictment brought by Uncle Sam. As reported in 864 F2d 266 United States of America v. Harry B. Helmsley, Leona M. Helmsley and others, Circuit Court Judge Cardamone in summarizing the facts and procedural history wrote:
“The 47 Count indictment charges Leona M. Helmsley and her husband, Harry B. Helmsley and two officers of the Helmsley Corporations with using their control of a large group of real estate, hotels, insurance and related business over the period from June 1983 to October 1986 with conspiracy to defraud the United States and the Internal Revenue Service. In addition to conspiracy, the Defendants are charged with tax evasion of approximately $1,200,000, filing false returns, mail fraud – involving an allegedly fraudulent use of corporate funds to pay for the renovation of “Dunnellen Hall” in Greenwich Connecticut – and extortion. The last charge alleges the defendant Helmsley demanded kickbacks of goods and services for Dunnellen Hall from certain contractors and vendors doing business with the Helmsley organization, threatening them that Helmsley business would be withheld unless kickbacks were paid”.
Perhaps fortunately, Harry was deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial so Leona took the brunt of the storm she created. During Trial some of the most damaging testimony came from the former housekeeper who testified that she heard Leona say “We don’t pay taxes. Only little people pay taxes.” It was a pompous quote, but one that unfortunately for her, helped seal her fate. In 1989 after a lengthy trial, Leona was ultimately convicted for tax evasion and was sentenced to four years in prison, though she only served eighteen months. Her sentence started on April 15, 1992 and she was released on January 26, 1994.
Freedom regained and fortunes restored, but her life would never be the same. Harry Helmsley was not well and he departed this earth on January 4, 1997. He left a Last Will and Testament dated January 25, 1994, oddly enough, the day before Leona was released from the big house. In Article 6th (A) of his Will, he left his residuary estate to Leona. Leona now a widow, resumed her place at the helm. Recognizing her own mortality she executed a new Will on July 15, 2005 and on August 20, 2007 she passed away. Once again, Leona, this time posthumously, captured the headlines in almost every NY tabloid detailing the peculiar terms of her Will.
Her beloved husband, Harry, predeceased her. So too did her only son, Jay Panzirer. She was survived by four grandchildren and her brother, though they would not be the primary beneficiaries of her largess. She provided for two of her four grandchildren, and her brother, threw her chauffeur a trinket, and a king size bone for Trouble, it was clearly the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust that was to benefit from roughly 99% of the multi-billion fortune. But it was the bequest to Trouble, that bitch of a Maltese that captured the headlines.
Leona’s Will cut out two of her four grandchildren. Though her Estate was worth conservatively $5,000,000,000 her grandson Craig Panzirer and granddaughter Meegan Panzirer were to receive nothing, “for reasons that are known to them,” she wrote. The other two grandchildren, David and Walter each received $5,000,000 outright, as well as $5,000,000 in a charitable remainder unitrust that is to pay out 5% of the trusts’ fair market value for their lifetimes after which the money would further fund the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Similarly her brother Alvin received $5,000,000 outright and $10,000,000 in a charitable remainder trust paying Alvin 5% of the trusts fair market value every year until his death, then the remainder is to add to the Charitable Trust.
But even these relatively modest provisions for her two grandchildren came with strings attached. Leona required that her grandchildren, David and Walter, must visit their father’s grave site at least once a year – preferably on the anniversary of his passing, and when visiting, they must sign into the registry. Failure to comply, failure to sign in and their interest in the Trust ends. So Leona.
Additionally, Leona ordered that anything with the name “Helmsley” be maintained in mint condition. She also left detailed instructions as to the disposition of her body and set aside $3,000,000 in a perpetual trust to maintain the Helmsley Mausoleum. The Trustees were required to maintain, clean, and preserve the Helmsley’s final resting place including an acid wash or steam wash at least once a year. She wanted to be interred beside her husband with her wedding ring on, and directed that nobody else could be laid to rest except her brother and his wife, and of course, that diamond studded, nippy little fluff ball – Trouble.
But it wasn’t the creation of two $5,000,000 charitable remainder trusts that was for the benefit of only two of her four grandchildren, leaving the other two grandchildren with ugatz that grabbed so much media attention, nor was it her leaving billions to charity for the benefit of the poor, the hungry or the sick that filled the tabloids – no, it was the $12,000,000 to for the benefit of Trouble that really got the press barking. When Leona was alive, Trouble had it all according to Leona’s former housekeeper Zamfira Sfara. “Pampered” apparently does not even begin to describe the way the little Maltese was treated. “I never saw a human being so in love with an animal,” said Sfara of Leona, “[she] would like the do tongue to tongue.” But Sfara maintains that diamond-collared Trouble was trouble, and often bit people without warning. “Everyone was bitten,” Sfara said, “bodyguards, the head of security, even customers.” Sfara, who sued Leona in 2005 after Trouble allegedly bit her hand and caused nerve damage, also said that the dog was prepared daily meals by the hotel chef. Once the meal was ready, Sfara was made to get down on her knees and feed the dog with two fingers.
Between cutting out two grandchildren, leaving $12,000,000 to Trouble and not clearly identifying the purpose of the enormous distribution to The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, it was a certainty that her Will would be subject to litigation and it would either be settled quickly or it would be a battle royale – a real dogfight. Fortunately reason prevailed. The two disinherited grandchildren and the Executors of Leona Helmsley’s estate agreed to a settlement which Surrogate Court Judge Renee Roth approved on April 20, 2008. Under the terms of the agreement, reportedly, the two disinherited grandchildren divided $6,000,000 and other bequests were reduced. After the details of the settlement were revealed on June 16, 2008 it became clear that the Court really screwed the pooch. The Court ordered a $10,000,000 haircut to Trouble’s trust, leaving the snappy little pooch a paltry $2,000,000. On the news the following spoof hit the internet:
“Trouble, late real estate billionaire Leona Helmsley’s pet dog, who was left $12,000,000 by the “Queen of Mean” has been found dead in her hotel suite – she got into trash and died after eating a snickers bar – according to the hotel manager – who now stands to inherit the bulk of the dogs remaining fortune.
A Manhattan Judge had switched the $10,000,000 from the nine year-old Maltese’s trust fund to Mrs. Helmsley’s charitable foundation only yesterday – however that switch is now null and void after the dogs sudden and unexpected demise – as the dog had yet to sign the legal papers.
Trouble had been living at the Helmsley Sandcastle Hotel in Florida – where according to manager Carl Lekic the dogs annual expenses came to $190,000 – the bulk of which was spent on high class hookers, cigarettes and Champagne.
“I know it sounds ridiculous” said Lekic – “but that dog loved them girls – and loved champagne and smoking – and of course the cars – well she’s dead now, so you really can’t check…can you?”
Trouble was found dead by Lekic who then produced a Will, he claims was dictated to him by the dog and signed with Trouble’s paw which left all the animals remaining assets to him.
“I suppose I was her only friend” smiled Lekic “and to think, if the dog hadn’t have eaten that chocolate on exactly the same day as the judge’s ruling I would only have gotten $2,000,000. It is very sad though – I am not sure how the chocolate got in her room…..”
However some are claiming foul play.
“Tiddles”, a 5-year-old Persian cat who also lives in the hotel claims that Trouble promised him a cut of her millions while several German Shepherds are claiming they were lovers of the dead dog – and want their cut.
Franz Hitlerberg, a sheep farmer from Bavaria told me “We were very close – intimate even – I used to take her for walks and one thing led to another. I think that she would have wanted me to have that cash.”
A funeral for Trouble was held at the hotels incinerator late last night.”*
It is funny. The press had lots of fun too. But, what about Leona’s Last Will and Testament? Were her intentions honored? She wanted to cut out two grandchildren, yet they inherited millions, she wanted to be buried with her Trouble but turns out, New York law doesn’t allow animals to be buried with humans (Leona that is) and she wanted $12,000,000 held in trust for the pooch, but Trouble was thrown only a $2,000,000 bone. Point is, with all her resources, her intentions were not honored.
Even the residuary beneficiary of her Will – The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust which was funded with billions of dollars, started in litigation. And again the question was, what did she intend. Seems Leona signed two mission statements in addition to the Helmsley Charitable Trust Agreement.
The second mission statement deleted any reference to improving medical services for indigents and children, and she omitted any reference to building a new hospital or contributing to an existing hospital to further the cause. It’s not clear why this language was removed. I don’t think even the Queen of Mean would be mad at indigents, ill children and hospitals. Right? But they’re out. Therefore, one could conclude the primary beneficiary of the Helmsley Charitable Trust should be “for purposes related to the provision of dogs,” whatever that means, and “such other charitable activities as the Trustees shall determine.” That’s it. That’s the language that governs the distribution of what will likely be over $25,000,000 a year – forever.
Certainly the Humane Society of the United States, The American Society for the Prevention and Cruelty to Animals and Maddies Fund had high expectations. They had reasonable grounds to believe that themselves, and like causes, would be the primary beneficiaries. The Trustees of the Helmsley Trust not wanting to be caught in the cross hairs of this dog fight, did the right thing. They petitioned the Court and asked for a determination as to the scope of their discretion in distributing monies to the charities. On a cold dog day afternoon in February 2009 the New York County Surrogate’s Court issued an Order. The Court held that the 2004 mission statement was “of no consequence” because the governing Helmsley Charitable Trust Agreement as amended on May 11, 2004 makes it clear that the “Trustees discretion to apply trust funds for charitable purposes is not limited by any mission statement settlor may have executed”, and accordingly “the Trustees may apply trust funds for such charitable purposes and in such amounts as they may, in their discretion, determine”. The Trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust responded with a clear exercise of discretion as follows:
“In April 2009, the Trust announced the first grants since Leona Helmsley’s death, totaling $36 million; the vast majority went to health and medical research for humans, and $1 million went to dog-related charities.” One or more dog-related charities undertook a publicity campaign, claiming that the Trustees had acted improperly and ignored Mrs. Helmsley’s instructions—a claim widely reported in the media.
Did Leona Helmsley intend for this charitable trust to focus on the care and help of dogs, rather than people? Absolutely not. Have the trustees of this vast fortune acted improperly and ignored Mrs. Helmsley’s instructions? Again, absolutely not.
These are the facts:
- Mrs. Helmsley died on August 20, 2007. Her will left nearly her entire fortune to The Leona M. And Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, which she had established in 1999. Until her death, Mrs. Helmsley was the sole trustee of the Trust.
- Between 1999 and her death, Mrs. Helmsley signed a number of documents relating to the Trust, including several amendments and two so-called “mission statements.” The totality of these documents clearly provided that the trustees, in the language of the document establishing the Trust, “may, in their sole discretion, distribute the net income and principal of the Trust Fund to and among such one or more Charitable Organizations and in such amounts or proportions as the Trustees, in their sole discretion, shall determine.”
- That is the language of the Trust itself, not a characterization. Moreover, numerous other provisions of the Trust documents fully supported our belief that Mrs. Helmsley had entrusted her successor trustees with, in the twice-stated language of the Trust itself, “sole discretion” to distribute the Trust’s money to charities the trustees consider worthy.
- Yet we chose instead to act not simply on our reading of the operative language, but with the full imprimatur of the law. There is a procedure under New York law that allows trustees to present weighty issues to the Surrogate’s Court, and to seek that Court’s guidance, or what the statute calls the Court’s “advice and direction”. We did precisely that, filing a petition in Surrogate’s Court, asking that court to review and confirm our reading of the documents.
- The petition disclosed and presented to the Court every conceivably relevant document, the original Trust instrument, the amendments, the “mission statements,” and others. The petition presented a detailed analysis of the documents, leading inescapably to the conclusion that the “sole discretion” granted by the Trust to the trustees should be honored. Before filing the petition, we served a copy on the Attorney General of New York State — the legal authority charged with assuring that charities function with integrity to their intended purposes.
- Before the Court ruled, the Attorney General submitted a written response to the petition, agreeing with us. The Surrogate’s Court upheld our position in a decision rendered on February 23, 2009, unambiguously ruling: [T]he court finds that the trustees may apply trust funds for such charitable purposes and in such amounts as they may, in their sole discretion, determine.”
- Until the Court ruled, we made no grants. In the interim, because of the high probability that the Court would rule that the Trust’s language means what it says, we undertook extensive due diligence regarding a variety of charities, so that once the Court ruled we could hit the ground running. And, indeed, we did. The Trust’s grants to hospitals, medical research efforts, other healthcare facilities, and organizations providing food and shelter to people in dire need, and other grants, will substantially alleviate human suffering and create healthier and more fulfilling lives for millions of people across the globe. And the billions of dollars the Trust will continue to donate will multiply that impact enormously.
- One final thought. Mrs. Helmsley was not known for reticence. Here, her actions spoke as clearly as the words of the Trust documents. In the eight years between the formation of the Trust and her death, Mrs. Helmsley contributed (as the sole trustee of this Trust and otherwise) over $55 million to charitable causes. Of that amount, she made only one gift to a dog-related charity, for one thousand dollars.
- Even more telling is this: The claim that the Trust was established for dog-related purposes relies on a document entitled “Mission Statement” signed by Mrs. Helmsley in 2004. Between her signing that document and her death — during which time she alone controlled the Trust — Mrs. Helmsley and the Trust gave over $29 million to charities; of that, the amount she and the Trust gave to dog-related charities was exactly zero.”*
On April 21, 2009, the trustees of The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust gave $136,000,000 to hospitals, medical foundations and homeless programs. To animal and dog charities, the trustees gave $1,000,000 to split between 10 organizations, including the Humane Society. Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Human Society of the United States, believed the Trustees’ move went against Helmsley’s express wishes, “giving less than 1 percent of the allocation to dog-related charities is a trifling amount and not consistent with Leona’s Helmsley’s expressed intention” Pacelle said afterwards.
Regardless of which charities benefitted, the Helmsley wealth is in fact benefitting good causes. The question is what did Leona intend? Were her intentions clearly expressed? You decide. Detailed below is a summary of distributions to various charitable entities from October 2010 until March 2011.
Table 4.1: The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust Grants
|The National Geographic Society||10/15/2010||$90,000|
|FasterCures – The Milken Institute||10/19/2010||$125,000|
|Court House, Inc.||10/19/2010||$100,000|
|Ashley Medical Center||11/8/2010||$343,740|
|National Audobon Society, Inc.||11/8/2010||$697,000|
|Catholic Health Initiatives||11/8/2010||$2,406,933|
|Presentation Medical Center||11/8/2010||$488,046|
|St. Aloisius Hospital, Inc.||11/8/2010||$332,175|
|Alvera St. Luke’s Hospital||11/8/2010||$369,660|
|University of Iowa||11/10/2010||$987,790|
|St. Andrews Health Center Foundation||11/8/2010||$357,260|
|Campbell County Memorial Hospital District||11/8/2010||$1,892,648|
|Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County Foundation||11/8/2010||$563,623|
|Avera McKenna Hospital and University Health Center||11/8/2010||$719,343|
|Dells Area Health Center||11/8/2010||$430,503|
|New York Presbyterian||12/20/2010||$5,000,000|
|The Weizmann Institute of Science||12/20/2010||$5,200,000|
|Technion – Israel Institute of Technology||12/20/2010||$5,000,000|
|Turnaround for Children||12/13/2010||$2,750,000|
|Catholic Health Initiatives||12/13/2010||$493,171|
|Sanford Health Foundation||12/13/2010||$2,060,151|
|National Summer Learning Association||12/13/2010||$17,700|
|South Lincoln Medical Center||12/13/2010||$419,101|
|Heart of America Medical Center||12/13/2010||$432,052|
|Towner Country Medical Center, Inc.||12/13/2010||$311,394|
|Memorial Hospital of Converse County||12/13/2010||$2,378,539|
|The Fund For Public Schools, Inc.||12/13/2010||$1,000,000|
|Center For Excellence In Health Care Journalism||12/13/2010||$1,097,000|
|Banner Health dba Platte County Memorial Hospital||12/13/2010||$471,285|
|University of the State of New York, Regents Research Fund||12/13/2010||$1,500,000|
|Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries||1/10/2011||$200,000|
|Gleaners Community Food Bank||1/10/2011||$200,000|
|The Salvation Army Eastern Michigan Div.||1/10/2011||$200,000|
|Diabetes Hands Foundation||2/14/2011||$150,000|
|Defensa Ambiental del Noroeste (DAN)||2/14/2011||$300,000|
|International Community Foundation||3/1/2011||$46,000|
|Foundation for Annie Jeffrey||3/1/2011||$548,754|
|Brodstone Memorial Hospital||3/1/2011||$472,968|
|Johnson County Hospital Foundation||3/1/2011||$530,161|
|Litzenberg Health Care Foundation||3/1/2011||$508,421|
|McKenzie County Healthcare Systems, Inc.||3/1/2011||$860,264|
|Future Generations Health Care Foundation||3/1/2011||$339,600|
|St. Andrews Health Care Center Foundation||3/1/2011||$336,872|
Many good and just causes will benefit from the billions Leona preserved for the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. But does such generosity change Leona’s legacy? In the eyes of our Maker, does the Benevolent Queen of Mean get a pass? Maybe she was just misunderstood … or maybe she was really mean – but had a big heart. But if you asked, “Were Leona Helmsley’s last wishes carried out to a T,” the answer is categorically no. So be forewarned, if Leona should crossover into the mind of John Edwards, or should she appear in a dream like Fruma Sarah, someone’s getting fired, but the good news is – food, medical care and housing may be available.
Legacy Lesson #14: Protect The Pooch
Many little people love their pets just like Leona loved Trouble. We too should provide for our furry friends, but naming a caretaker and providing a fixed bequest for their needs is too often overlooked in the estate planning process. Perhaps you should start such planning by asking the individual you’d like to nominate as the pets’ caretaker if they’re willing to assume this responsibility and give an assurance that adequate funds will be provided so the caretaker doesn’t have any financial burden. Clearly, Leona’s bequest of $12,000,000 to Trouble was a little over the top, but there are annual costs that can be quantified over the lifetime of the pet. The flamboyant Liberace, on the other hand was another celebrity who created a pet trust for the benefit of his fifty dogs and though his intentions were good, the trust fund was exhausted before the last dog died, so in his case, the pet trust was underfunded.
Grooming, feeding and veterinary costs can be substantial over the life of a pet, but try to quantify these costs. Then either create an outright bequest in your Will or a Trust, called a Testamentary Pet Trust funded with an amount equal to your estimated costs and name a caretaker who’s willing to care for your furry friends. Typically, the amount devised would not warrant the utilization of a trust. However, without a trust, such a bequest would not guarantee that the funds will be used as intended. For those who have numerous pets, needy pets, or prefer an accountability, a trust may be preferable to an outright bequest.
The New York City Bar Association issued an informative booklet called “Planning for Your Pets in Your Will” and in it are sample clauses that may be used in drafting a Will or Trust. Detailed below are just four examples from the booklet that have been slightly modified.
Example #1: Friend As Caretaker And A Fixed Bequest
I give my dog Snowy, and any other animals which I may own at the time of my death, to Leona Helmsley, with the request that she treat them with love and care. If she is unable or unwilling to accept my animals, I give such animals to Liberace with the request that he treat them with love and care. I direct my Executor to give Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars from my estate to the person who accepts Snowy, and any of my other animals. I request, but do not direct, that these funds be used for the care of my animals.
Example #2: Humane Shelter As Caretaker And A Fixed Bequest
I give my dog Snowy, and any other animals I may have, to the Humane Shelter with the following requests:
- that the Humane Shelter take possession of and care for all my animals and search for good homes for them;
- that until homes are found for my animals, the animals be placed in foster homes rather than in cages at the shelter;
- that if it is necessary to keep some of the animals in cages while making arrangements to find permanent homes, in no event should any animal stay more than a total of 2 weeks in a cage;
- that each animal should receive appropriate veterinary care, as needed;
- that the shelter make every effort to assure that none of my animals are ever used for medical research or product testing or painful experimentation under any circumstances;
- that, after placement, shelter personnel make follow-up visits to assure that my animals are receiving proper care in their new homes;
If the Humane Shelter is in existence at the time of my death and is able to accept my animals, I give the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars to the Humane Shelter. If the Humane Shelter is unable to accept my animals, I give my animals and the sum $10,000 to one or more similar charitable organizations as my Executor shall select, subject to the requests made above.
Example #3: Trust For The Care of Pets
I give the sum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars and all of my dogs, cats, and any other animals of mine living at the time of my death to the trustee hereunder, IN TRUST, for the following purposes and subject to the following terms and conditions:
This trust is created for the benefit of all of my dogs, cats, and any other animals of mine living at the time of my death (the “Beneficiaries” herein).
The trust shall terminate upon the earlier to occur of the following events: the last to die of the Beneficiaries, or if required by law, twenty-one (21) years from the date of my death.
During the term of the trust, the trustee shall apply for the benefit of the Beneficiaries, any or all of the net income of the trust and so much or all of the principal of the trust from time to time, as the trustee shall in the trustee’s discretion determine to be advisable for the care, including veterinary care, of the Beneficiaries. Any income accrued but not distributed for the benefit of the Beneficiaries shall be added to the principal of the trust.
I appoint Warren Buffet to be the trustee of such trust. If such person has predeceased me or for any other reason is unable to act as such trustee, I appoint Bill Gates to be the trustee of such trust.
I designate Dr. Doolittle to be the caretaker of the Beneficiaries. If such person has predeceased me or for any other reason is unable to act as such caretaker, I designate Dr. Seuss to be the caretaker of the Beneficiaries. If such person has predeceased me or for any other reason is unable to act as such caretaker, the trustee shall select another person to act as caretaker of the Beneficiaries. The Trustee, in the trustee’s discretion, may pay a stipend from the trust to the person acting as such caretaker.
I am creating this trust to provide for the care of my animals and the trustee does not need to consider the interests of the remainderpersons when making distributions. The trustee, in the trustee’s discretion, may use all of the trust property for the benefit of my animals; even if the result is that nothing will pass to the remainderpersons.
Upon the termination of the trust, if any property remains in the trust at the time of termination, the trustee shall distribute any such income and/or principal to the Humane Shelter. If such charitable organization is not in existence at the time of termination, I give the trust remainder, if any, to a charitable organization that benefits animals described in Section 170(c) and 2055(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, to be selected by the trustee.
Example #4: Trust For Farm Animals
I give my horses, farm animals, and any other animals which I may own or have in my possession at the time of my death, and the sum of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) Dollars, to my trustees named hereunder, IN TRUST, to hold and arrange for the care of such animals and to invest and reinvest such funds and to pay for the expenses of the care of such animals from such property as my trustees shall in their discretion determine. This trust is created for the benefit of my horses, farm animals and other domestic animals. My trustees may board my animals with a suitable boarding facility, or may rent a property where the animals can live and hire a caretaker to care for the animals. The trustees shall make appropriate arrangements for the proper care of my animals, including veterinary care, during their lives. The animals are not to be sold, but the trustees may place one or more of my animals with animal sanctuary, if the trustees, in their discretion, determine that it is in the best interests of such animals. The trustee may continue to pay for the care of such animals at such sanctuary, or make such other arrangements as may be beneficial to my animals. I designate Pete Friendly, or if such person is unable or unwilling to act in such capacity, Haus Friendly, as the person to enforce the trust, if necessary.
This trust shall terminate upon the earlier to occur of the following events; the last to die of my animals, or if required by law, twenty-one (21) years from the date of my death. Upon the termination of the trust, if any animals of mine are then living, or if any income and/or principal remains in the trust at the time of termination, the trustees shall distribute any surviving animals and any such remaining income and/or principal to Animal Friendly Sanctuary. If such sanctuary is not in existence at the time of termination, the trustees shall distribute any surviving animals and any remaining income and/or principal to an animal sanctuary or sanctuaries, to be selected by my trustees, in their discretion.
Legacy Lesson #15: The Grim Reaper’s Silver Lining
When Leona Helmsley died in 2007, the federal estate tax rate was 45% on assets over $2,000,000. If her estate was valued, after administration costs, at $5,000,000,000 less the $2,000,000 federal estate exemption amount, her estate tax liability could have exceeded $2,200,000,000. Instead of incurring such an enormous liability, Leona Helmsley chose to provide her brother, Alvin, with an outright bequest of $10,000,000 and $5,000,000 to two of her grandchildren, David and Walter. In addition to the outright bequests, her Will created three separate charitable remainder unitrusts; one funded with $10,000,000 for Alvin for his lifetime, one for her grandson David funded with $5,000,000 and another for her grandson Walter, also funded with $5,000,000. The terms of these Trusts are straightforward. The trustees are to determine the value of each Trust annually, then pay out to the beneficiaries 5% of the net fair market value of the trust for the beneficiaries’ lifetimes. As an example, if the Trusts values were constant, Alvin would receive $500,000 a year for life, and each grandchild would receive $250,000 a year for life.
By creating these trusts, Leona accomplished three objectives:
- First, these payments for life, combined with the fixed bequests in her Will, gave her assurances that all three would always have a roof over their heads and enough money to survive without worrying.
- Second, her estate would be entitled to an estate tax deduction equal to the value of the remainder interest going to her Foundation. By way of example, if her grandsons were both 45-years-old, the Foundation would have to wait approximately 38 years before receiving the balance of the trust funds. Therefore, depending on interest rates, her estate would receive an estate tax charitable deduction of approximately 20% of the $5,000,000 contributed into the trust or $1,000,000. However, if her brother Alvin was 80-years-old at the time of her demise, the Foundation would have to wait approximately only 10 years until actuarially, Alvin dies, and depending on the then interest rate, her estate would be entitled to an estate tax charitable deduction of approximately 67% of the $10,000,000 contributed into his trust, or $6,700,000.
- Third, Leona knew with certainty that after each beneficiary dies, their trust would further fund the Helmsley Charitable Trust.
A win win for all.
By so structuring the distribution of her estate, Leona utilized less than 1% of her total estate value for family members and the remaining 99% of the Helmsley empire would earn the estate a charitable deduction. Whether she planned her estate to avoid estate taxation, or was truly philanthropic, or more likely a combination of both, we’ll never know. But one thing’s for sure, the estate tax changes how wealthy individuals distribute their estates. The problem however is that Congress has historically made it difficult for Americans to plan their estates with certainty. A review of the federal estate tax system from 1997 to 2013 exposes the roller coaster ride that we the little people have been forced to endure.
Table 4.2: Historical and Future Federal Estate Tax Exemptions and Rates
|Year||Estate Tax Exemption||Top Estate Tax Rate|
Tax years 2010 through 2012 are based on the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act that was signed into law by President Obama on December 17, 2010. This law is only good until it sunsets on December 31, 2012 and then we return to the estate tax structure as it was in 2002. Numbers on a chart simply don’t tell the story. So to better illustrate the point, if your estate was valued at $3,000,000 as a constant, from 1997 through 2013, then your federal estate tax liability could be estimated as follows:
Table 4.3: The Estate Tax Rollercoaster
|Year||Estate Tax Exemption||Estimated Estate Tax Liability|
Families who have accumulated modest wealth don’t know if they should anticipate being subjected to the estate tax and planning their estates accordingly, or spin the wheel and hope to die in a year that their estate can pass free of federal estate tax. The Boss, George Steinbrenner died on July 13, 2010 with an estate estimated at $1.1 billion and since there was no estate tax in 2010, his heirs got a $500,000,000 windfall. In an article entitled, The Disappering Billions, by Ivan Taback and Yvonne M. Perez-Zarraga it was estimated that our federal government will lose $8.75 billion of revenue as a result of the 2010 estate tax repeal. In addition to that lost revenue, would billionaires such as Leona Helmsley leave all or a portion of their fortunes to charity if there was no estate tax deduction? If charities weren’t supported by wealthy donors, who would support them?
Legacy Lesson #16: A Generation Skipped
Leona intended to provide for two of her grandchildren, while cutting out two other grandchildren. However, she did not provide her reasoning which could have been instructive to a Court if her intentions were ever challenged – and challenged they were. In fact, her 18 page Will only said “I have not made any provisions in this Will for my grandson CRAIG PANZIRER or my granddaughter MEEGAN PANZIRER for reasons which are known to them”. Outsiders could only speculate that when Leona’s only son Jay died, Leona had reportedly tormented her daughter-in- law, and perhaps by so doing, put the relationship with her grandchildren at risk. Given the fact that she was a multi-billionaire, and she left millions to her other grandchildren, she should have been much more precise in expressing her intentions. Perhaps her lack of specificity was for the best.
Leaving a bequest, or a trust for the benefit of grandchildren is a wonderful sentiment and typically, grandchildren never forget such acts of kindness. But be careful. Congress may view an act of kindness as an attempt to avoid estate taxation. In short, if a grandparent left a bequest of $10,000,000 to a grandchild, and such wealth wouldn’t be subject to estate tax until the grandchild died, the Treasury would have to wait a long time before collecting any estate tax from that grandchild. The U.S. Treasury apparently isn’t that patient and viewed such a transaction as a tax loophole. Its preference is to collect monies on each and every estate that exceeds the exemption amount, not every other estate. So to close this loophole, Congress enacted the generation skipping transfer tax. This tax, which is assessed in addition to the estate tax, would all but absorb any wealth passed to a generation two or more generations below the transferor – in this example a grandparent to a grandchild. There is however a generation skipping transfer tax exempt amount, currently $5,000,000 per individual, which is not subject to this confiscatory tax. Here’s the rub, the exemption amount is a moving target. From 2001 to 2013 the exemption from the generation skipping transfer tax has or will change seven times. In addition, there is also a predeceased ancestor exemption such that if a child predeceased a parent, the parent may leave the bequest to the grandchild without incurring the generation skipping transfer tax. But the question is, do you want to provide meaningful wealth to grandchildren if: a) you don’t yet know them; b) if you don’t know the spouse; or c) if such wealth would take the incentive out of working hard and climbing the proverbial ladder? Creating a generation skipping transfer trust of $5,000,000 is a great thought, but drill down. Will you be upset if instead of inheriting $5,000,000 you instead receive the income of the trust for life, and after you die it passes to your children?
Legacy Lesson #17: Buried, But Not Resting Peacefully
When Harry Helmsley died, his Will included specific burial instructions as follows:
“I, HARRY B. HELMSLEY, do make this Will, hereby revoking all wills and codicils previously made by me. Any reference to my Will shall include any codicil thereto. I direct that my remains be interred at the Helmsley Mausoleum at Woodlawn Cemetery, The Bronx, New York. I further direct that permission be granted as the need arises for the interment in the Helmsley Mausoleum of the remains of my wife, LEONA M. HELMSLEY (“my wife), her brother, ALVIN ROSENTHAL, and her brother’s wife, SUSAN ROSENTHAL, but for no other person.”
After Harry B. Helmsley died, his wishes were respected … for a while anyway. He was in fact buried in the Bronx at the Woodlawn Cemetery, but Leona soon became disenchanted with the lack of ambiance surrounding the Helmsley Mausoleum. Since every real estate agent’s mantra is location, location, location – Leona found a better location for her Harry. But the mechanics of moving a body at rest isn’t so easy. Leona sued, seeking to disinter the body claiming the Bronx Cemetery no longer provided perpetual beauty and peaceful solitude, but instead had become an eyesore.
Leona’s protests and pleadings worked. Harry’s remains were disinterred and moved uptown into a $1,400,000 mausoleum at Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Westchester, New York. The new location, where Harry and Leona Helmsley are interred, sits imposingly on the crest of a hill bearing the name Helmsley. Two real estate tycoons resting comfortably.
Leona Helmsley is not the only one who has had to sue to move the deceased from one gravesite to another. And, it’s certainly not the kind of issue unique to celebrities. In fact, in unreported probate litigation matter a judge was told the story of a dying man who once called his son down to the basement and explained that though still married to his mother for more than forty years, it had been a lifetime of bickering. Not believing in divorce, both he and his wife agreed to live separate lives and to some degree, the détente worked. But now, facing his own mortality, he had made an important decision, and asked his son to see to it that his intentions were honored. This dying man wanted to be buried next to his father. He explained that if he was buried in a single plot next to his father, he would surely have eternal peace. But, if buried in a double plot, and his wife later interred on top of him, he would be condemned to an eternity of bickering.
With that in mind, he asked his son to go to the cemetery and buy the plot next to his father. The son, honoring the wish of a dying man complied. Hours later, he returned to the basement, plot deed in hand and assured his father he can and will rest in peace. To be sure that buying the plot deed was enough, the father asked the son to call the family lawyer and ask if burial instructions had to be part of a Will. The call was made, and the attorney opined that the deceased are buried before a Will is probated, and therefore, the purchase of the plot deed reflected his intentions and would be sufficient. Relieved, the dying man closed his eyes for the last time. Though some describe this family as dysfunctional, the morning of the funeral they dressed in dark clothes, attended mass and rode in black limousines which followed the hearse like every other family in mourning. But on this morning, the hearse went one way, and the limousine carrying the son and two of the five siblings went another way. When the son’s limousine reached what was to be his father’s final resting place, there were no other cars and the plot had not been prepared for his father’s burial. The son quickly phoned the main office and was informed that his mother had, just one day prior, purchased a double plot and made arrangements for her deceased husband to be buried such that when she died, she could be interred on top. The son, enraged, didn’t attend his father’s burial, instead he called a lawyer hoping to stop the burial.
The sympathetic lawyer understood and immediately filed an Order To Show Cause seeking to disinter the body and bury the deceased as he had requested. A judge was called, he read the relief requested and ordered all parties to appear in Court one week later. The family members arrived at Court in different cars, all dressed in dark suits and appropriately subdued dresses like any other family. The son who petitioned the Court took the stand first and tearfully explained his father’s charge and his promise to honor the wish of a dying man. The lawyer too testified that the decedent had called and asked if he needed to update his Will to include his wish that he be buried with his father. The lawyer offered a detailed summary of the call, his thought process and the advice he offered. The widow was then called to testify. She put her hand on the bible and swore to tell the truth. Her lawyer offered into evidence the ten-year-old year Last Will and Testament of her now deceased husband. He asked her to read aloud from Article 2nd of that Last Will and Testament. Slowly she read the words which directed that the Executrix shall have the power to bury the decedent in such manner as she, in her sole discretion shall determine reasonable. The Court having heard testimony from all who appeared that morning took a one hour break and then issued a decision. The order was clear. The Court reasoned that after death, there’s only one document that speaks the words of the dead and that’s why the document is called a Last Will. Accordingly, the terms of the decedent’s Last Will governed, not the purchase of a cemetery plot, not the call to a lawyer nor oral discussions with a son.
So then its clear, to assure your intentions are honored, you must document your burial intentions in your Last Will and Testament. Ted Williams, one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game did just that on December 20, 1996 when he signed his Last Will and Testament.
In his Last Will and Testament, Ted Williams expressed his wishes to be cremated and his ashes sprinkled at sea off the coast of Florida where the water is very deep. He also directed that no funeral or memorial service of any kind should be held for him and that neither his family nor his friends should sponsor any such service for him.
However, on November 2, 2000 the Splendid Splinter allegedly signed a handwritten note, which conflicted with Article 1 of his Will. This note, stained with motor oil, and allegedly bearing the signatures of Ted, John Henry, and his sister, Claudia claims that they all agree to be put into Bio-Stasis after they die so they can be together for the future, even if there is only a chance.
Almost immediately after his death, Ted Williams’ body was flown to an Arizona cryonics lab to be cryonically suspended. His head was removed in neuroseparation surgery, a procedure that billed John Henry $120,000 plus $16,000 for the cost of flying the body to Arizona. The Hall of Famer’s head and body are being stored in separate containers. His head, which been cracked as many as ten times, supposedly because of changing temperatures, and has two dime size holes in it, is stored in a silver container marked as ID #A-1949. This burial request resulted in litigation amongst the siblings, but the damage was already done, he was already in pieces, and now the siblings relationship is also in a state of deep thaw.
So whether you want your remains cremated, launched into space, frozen, buried at sea, stored in an urn or sitting on a mantle over the fireplace like Jack Burns’ father in “Meet the Parents”, you must clearly express these intentions in your Will. Same applies to the purchasing of any plot deeds, or written funeral plans. Give thought to who you choose as your Executor, because ultimately, it’s the Executor who’ll tuck you in for the big sleep.
Legacy Lesson #18: The Mission Statement: A Legacy Builder or Buster
How many rooms could be filled with closing binders of all the properties Harry Helmsley bought and sold? How many hours did the Helmsleys, their lawyers, accountants and employees dedicate to ironing out the details of complex commercial real estate transactions? It took decades to build the Helmsley empire. Yet, how much thought went into defining the purpose of the Leona B. and Harry M. Charitable Trust? The trust was established years before Leona died, and was clearly to be one of New York’s largest private charitable trusts. And if you go by the last signed Mission Statement the Trustees were directed to hold, administer and manage the assets for:
“(1) purposes related to the provision of care for dogs; and
(2) such other charitable activities as the Trustees shall determine.”
That’s it – that’s the mission statement? Dogs and whatever you think … really? And, a little help please, like, what percentage should be distributed for the benefit of dogs, and what percentage should be distributed at the discretion of the trustees? That ambiguity was certainly cleared up by the Court. The dogs were left out in the cold and distributions were left entirely to the discretion of the trustees. And by the way, from an outsider’s point looking in, it looks like the trustees are doing an outstanding job – no issue there. The website is informative and monies are going to great causes. That’s not the point. The point is, given the enormous amount of wealth being bestowed upon the trustees, and the great responsibilities they’ve been asked to assume, you would think the Helmsley Mission Statement would be a work of art, detailed with lots of strings attached and conditions precedent and other such Helmsley imprimaturs. But instead, the first and second amended mission statements lacked any such forethought. The Helmsley Mission Statements didn’t get the attention that you’d think worthy of a multi billion dollar fortune that could be held for the benefit of charities … forever.
What did the donor intend? Though the judicial intervention required to determine whether or not the Trustees of the Leona B. and Harry M. Charitable Trust had absolute discretion or not was resolved quickly – that’s atypical. Usually the words “quick and efficient” are not associated with litigation. Giving money to charity is a good thing. It usually makes both the donor and the charity feel good. But that magnanimous feeling can quickly turn sour if the donor, or some other interested family members questions the utilization of the gifted dough. Just ask the Robertson’s. Charles Robertson was a Princeton graduate, class of 1926. His wife Marie inherited a fortune through her grandfather, the founder of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company now known as A&P. In 1961, the Robertson’s created the Robertson Foundation and funded it with $35 million worth of A&P stock. The certificate of incorporation, much like a mission statement, clearly stated the purposes of the Foundation:
“To establish or maintain and support, at Princeton University, and as a part of the Woodrow Wilson School, a Graduate School, where men and women dedicated to public service may prepare themselves for careers in government service, with particular emphasis on the education of such persons for careers in those areas of the Federal Government that are concerned with international relations and affairs….”
The Robertson’s wanted their gift to be used for graduate training in international affairs with the hope that that most of the students who benefitted from the gift, would one day work for the federal government. In a 1962 letter, Charles Robertson wrote about his desires: “If substantial numbers of persons trained in the School do not go into government service … then no matter how excellent their training may have been, the basic purpose of the School is not being achieved”. To assure that the gift was properly managed, The Robertson Foundation was created with seven board members. Four were to be appointed by Princeton University and three by the Robertson family, including naming Charles Robertson as Chairman of the Foundation who dutifully served until his death in 1981. The trouble is that Princeton trustees sought to expand the meaning of the mission and control the management of the Foundation funds, while the Robertson heirs sought to narrow the scope of the mission and objected to the Princeton University Investment Company being retained as the investment managers. Add the accelerant; the 1961 gift of $35,000,000 appreciated over the years to over $900,000,000 and the molten lava was ready to blow.
This volcano erupted in 2002 when the Robertson trustees sued Princeton University, and the trustees appointed by Princeton University. The Robertson’s as Plaintiffs sought to sever the Foundations ties to Princeton University, regain control of the Foundation themselves, terminate Princeton University Investment Company as the investment manager and hold the University accountable for alleged inappropriate transactions. Princeton University refuted the claims by emphasizing that it operated, supervised and ultimately controlled the Foundation, and as such, had academic independence that broadened the scope of the mission when necessary.
After forty years of peacefully fulfilling the donors intention, the hinges had come off, and the next six and half years was nothing short of a four alarm fire. Over eighty individuals had their depositions taken and that task alone took 125 days. Experts were retained from Duke University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, the IRS and top accounting firms, to opine as to what’s right, only to be refuted by experts hired by the adversary opining what’s wrong. Though both sides had the funds to wage war, there’s nothing worse than money intended to benefit charities going up in smoke. The Plaintiffs had funded this firefight through another charitable foundation called the Banbury Fund and the price tag – over $20,000,000. Perhaps well over $20,000,000 as in December of 2008, the litigation was finally settled, and the claims extinguished by a settlement agreement that provided:
- That Robertson Foundation Funds would be used to reimburse the Plaintiffs Banbury Funds $40,000,000 payable over three years.
- That The Robertson Foundation would fund a new Foundation funded with $50,000,000 over ten years and the funds would be used strictly to prepare students for careers in government service.
- That the Robertson Foundation would thereafter be dissolved, and the funds transferred to an endowment fund at Princeton University with the same mission and purpose as understood and interpreted by Princeton University.
There is a right way and a wrong way to create a mission statement. Ideally, the perfect mission statement would be a clear and concise. It would reflect your intentions and provide the trustees with some inspiration and guidance. Mechanically, the mission statement could name the specific charitable causes and allocate percentages of distributions to each one, or it can name numerous charitable causes or types of causes and allow the trustees the right to allocate amongst them as they determine. A key component to a well drafted mission statement is determining how much discretion the trustees or board members are granted. The advice and input from family members and advisors should be sought, as they may be responsible to see the mission through as employees, advisors, board members and or trustees and you want assurances that they are willing to so serve. The term of the mission should also be established; as some charitable foundations or trusts operate in perpetuity, others only for a term of years. A mission statement could be a true legacy builder, a reflection of your good intentions and giving back to communities or causes that move you. It’s a worthy undertaking, but it does take time, attention and some diplomacy. In the process of trying to do good, you don’t want to poison the waters and taint the intent of a gift.