ForumGarden

AngelEyes82;686699 wrote: Leona Helmsley's dog will continue to live an opulent life, and then be buried alongside her in a mausoleum. But two of Helmsley's grandchildren got nothing from the late luxury hotelier and real estate billionaire's estate.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/29/helmsl ... index.html


i can bark woof woof

I had watched a previously taped interview with her, and she was bla bla bla bla

about how nice her and her husband were and how they were misrepresented as cruel, seriously!! Did she think the rest of the world was taking downers her entire life so everyone wouldnt beleive that crap!!! No I am not a fan of hers at all.

Somebody has to say it: what a bitch.

Why?

I don't think a dog needs $12 million bucks. Give it to some charity or research group where it might do some good. Ridiculous.

YZGI;687482 wrote: I don't think a dog needs $12 million bucks. Give it to some charity or research group where it might do some good. Ridiculous.


Well, I did figure that but I'm always bemused when people say that. I figure it's still their money to put where they want. The little dog won't need all that money so what happens to the remainder after the dog dies? If she didn't specify, that is. I was really disgusted that she only left the chauffer $100,000. I would have peeled him off a nice mill for his time.

Poor Leona, the queen of mean.

I remember when Howard Stern (he used to be a NY talk show host now he's on sirius) used to have parody's about her treating all of her help so badly. It was so funny.

I stayed at her hotel "Sandcastle" in Lido Bch in Florida. Old, outdated place but really lovely....had everything. 3 poors, 3 restaurants, entertainment and right on the beach.

She certainly has the right to give her money to anyone that she wants to, but I think it's crazy to leave all that money to your pet.

RedGlitter;687489 wrote: I figure it's still their money to put where they want.
It may be her right, but she's still a bitch for doing it. There are lots of things that each of us should not be prevented from doing that nonetheless reflect poorly on us when we do them. Leaving $12M to a dog - almost certainly than its lifetime upkeep will cost - is hard to read as anything other than a deliberate slap in the face to anyone else who might have expected to be part of that inheritance. The implicit message is that nobody at all should have it. It's tantamount to saying that the money should be converted to cash and burned or buried.

what happens to the remainder after the dog dies?
It's hard to tell with a trust. If there are no specific provisions to the contrary then it would either sit in the trust account in perpetuity or revert to the state (not sure which and it might even differ between jurisdictions) but there almost certainly are such provisions. Without being able to look at the documents setting up the trust, we can't really know.

Platypus;687543 wrote: It may be her right, but she's still a bitch for doing it. There are lots of things that each of us should not be prevented from doing that nonetheless reflect poorly on us when we do them. Leaving $12M to a dog - almost certainly than its lifetime upkeep will cost - is hard to read as anything other than a deliberate slap in the face to anyone else who might have expected to be part of that inheritance. The implicit message is that nobody at all should have it. It's tantamount to saying that the money should be converted to cash and burned or buried.

It's hard to tell with a trust. If there are no specific provisions to the contrary then it would either sit in the trust account in perpetuity or revert to the state (not sure which and it might even differ between jurisdictions) but there almost certainly are such provisions. Without being able to look at the documents setting up the trust, we can't really know.


See though, there we go with someone else's expectations. She obviously gave to the people she wanted to give to and left out those she felt deserved leaving out. Nobody has a right to expect someone else's money IMO. And I think she was a nasty person, but certainly not a bitch for distributing her money as she saw fit.

RedGlitter;687544 wrote: Nobody has a right to expect someone else's money IMO. And I think she was a nasty person, but certainly not a bitch for distributing her money as she saw fit.
No specific individual has a right to expect somebody else's money, but don't you think it's a bit bitchy to say, in essence, that you'd rather let money go to waste than allow any human anywhere to benefit from it? That seems rather extremely misanthropic to me. If she doesn't want to leave it to relatives, she could have left it to charity, or to her favorite political cause. Even leaving it all to her chauffeur or her lawyers might have been less obnoxious. Whatever principle you might feel is at stake could have been upheld in myriad other ways. She must have had a specific reason for choosing this way, and by far the most likely such reason is to spite someone. What other message do you think might have been intended?

Maybe no one else was worthy of her money. There;s nothing wrong at all with spiting someone with your own money. I see nothing wrong with what she did at all. because it was her money in life and her money in death as well.

RedGlitter;687726 wrote: There;s nothing wrong at all with spiting someone with your own money.
There's always something wrong with acting out of spite. I dare say there are things I could do or say right now that I'd have every right to do or say, but I'd still be a jerk if I did. Having a right to do something doesn't absolve one of all moral judgment for how one exercises that right.

because it was her money in life and her money in death as well.
That could be disputed. This is a woman who went to jail for tax evasion, after all. It's not too much a stretch to imagine that some percentage of that $12M was similarly ill-gotten.

Platypus;687789 wrote: There's always something wrong with acting out of spite. I dare say there are things I could do or say right now that I'd have every right to do or say, but I'd still be a jerk if I did. Having a right to do something doesn't absolve one of all moral judgment for how one exercises that right.



That could be disputed. This is a woman who went to jail for tax evasion, after all. It's not too much a stretch to imagine that some percentage of that $12M was similarly ill-gotten.


That I can't argue with. But I still have to disagree with you on the first part. I don't think her choice was any kind of immoral.

Look at it this way Red. SHe could have made 12 homeless people millionaires. Instead she made 1 dog a multi millionaire.

My boys and I had a great discussion about this subject last night. They said they wish they were the dog....my middle one said, he'd gladly change his name to "Scruffy"....for 12 million....:wah::wah:

YZGI;688006 wrote: Look at it this way Red. SHe could have made 12 homeless people millionaires. Instead she made 1 dog a multi millionaire.


I see that point, YZ. It makes sense. I'm just saying she shouldn't have had to. I feel like that bumper sticker "We're Busy Spending Our Children's Inheritance." I think that's terrible but it's their right. Doesn't make them bad for it. IMO.

RedGlitter;688024 wrote: I see that point, YZ. It makes sense. I'm just saying she shouldn't have had to. I feel like that bumper sticker "We're Busy Spending Our Children's Inheritance." I think that's terrible but it's their right. Doesn't make them bad for it. IMO.
I know where you're coming from but the dog is living with her ubber rich brother now. How much more does it need?

YZGI;688029 wrote: I know where you're coming from but the dog is living with her ubber rich brother now. How much more does it need?


Oh I agree 12 mill is excessive for his (or her?) upkeep and wellbeing. I would have liked to see some moolah go to an animal charity but again, this is Leona we're talking about. :wah:

I saw a picture of this woman not to long ago, scary!

Platypus;687473 wrote: Somebody has to say it: what a bitch.


I agree!

Platypus;687473 wrote: Somebody has to say it: what a bitch.


The headline in the New York Post :

Rich Bitch

It was referring to the dog. (Suuure it was... :yh_rotfl)

Platypus;687473 wrote: Somebody has to say it: what a bitch.
Yeah! bitch!

I heard that she terrorized her employees. Ew. She sounds like my own mother, that's what scares me. And didn't she serve time in prison? I bet her grandkids wanted nothing to do with her anyway.:wah: