go check this article out. why would any human being want to do something so stupid, when the stae is gonna get the money after they throw the dog in a shelter to die. why not just give the money to a dog shelter. do you think this women will go to hell for this?
2007-08-29 05:54:41 · 14 answers · asked by cuzzintruck 2 in Pets ➔ Dogs
here is the website http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070829/helmsley_s_pooch.html?.v=1
2007-08-29 05:55:16 · update #1
Pretty sad that she could only have enough love in her heart for a dog.
I love my dogs too, but I think children, grandchildren, charity, all comes first.
She was a crazy person. Mean to the end.
2007-08-29 06:53:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
When someone leaves money to their dog, the money is managed by a person named in the will. It is for the CARE of the dog for the rest of it's life. It can pay for the food, shelter, and medical care for the dog (including the house the dog lives in with it's new human caretaker). After the dog passes, the money belongs to the person stated in the trust to be next in line, most often a charity. I think it's great when someone thinks ahead to ensure that the dog they committed to care for it's entire life is actually cared for...it's a sign of RESPONSIBILITY, not stupidity. The kind of people who feel that pets are disposable and should be thrown in a shelter are the ones who deserve to burn in hell...they not only cause heartbreak to the dogs, but they cost taxpayers money, and volunteers much time to care for the dogs that they didn't feel like being responsible for.
2007-08-29 13:14:03 · answer #2 · answered by Leigh 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I saw the article on the main page of Yahoo today. .I am not going to waste my time reading something so stupid as this. No- I don't think that she will burn in hell for leaving 12-million dollars to her dog. .It does however, make me feel like slapping her hard across the face to knock some sense into her!! People are starving in Africa, People are starving in China, People are starving here, even in the US, -and- all over the World, for that matter!!
All Right!! - At 4 Thumbs-down. . .I stand corrected (at least, in part). She did care enough about her dog, but I would have found a good home for the animal rather than leaving it that much money. 12 million dollars is an awful lot for 1 dog. And about the face-slapping, I apologize. I am not perfect either. As 1 Yahoo Answerer wisely said; "It's between her & "God" now!
2007-08-29 13:07:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
It may be out of the ordinary, but its alot better than what alot of owners do to their dogs. It would be wonderful if whoever is the caregiver for the dog now would donate it to the animal shelters in the dog's name. To ask if they will burn in hell, well thats just not up to you, and no one on Yahoo answers for that fact.
2007-08-29 13:29:34 · answer #4 · answered by Kristen 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Helmsley put the majority of her estate (billions) in a Charitable Trust so I'm guessing she's heaven bound. She left money to her driver ($100,000) and $3 million to upkeep her family's mausoleum (burial place).
She did leave her beloved dog 12 million dollars, her brother got millions, and two of her four grandchildren each 5 million dollars if they visited their father's grave once a year. The other two grandchildren got nothing, she noted "for reasons that are known to them." I'm guess that giving 12 million to the pampered maltese is making them mad.
The dog will not be thrown in a shelter because her brother's money is only his if he cares for the dog. When the dog dies of old age, she specified it is to be buried next to her and her late husband.
2007-08-29 13:12:47 · answer #5 · answered by Mel 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is America we have the right to leave our money to whomever we want for whatever reasons. I think she was trying to make a point to the family members she left out of her will.
Yes there are many organization who could have helped so many ppl and their families with that money but she stayed true to her nicknames as being greedy and mean right to the end of her life and her legacy carries on with her will.
To each there own....who am I to judge
2007-08-29 13:07:44 · answer #6 · answered by Dawn R 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hummm.... lets see Christ's parables-
You would haul a donkey out of a pit on the Sabbath - taken as a given the care of the animal take precedence over the rest day...
Oh and asking Peter to "feed his sheep" - admittedly using that as an analogy to look after his followers - but taken as a given that provisions for livestock after one's death is understandable...
No I don't think god will look in displeasure with making provisions for ones animals... and if you think the state can get away with killing the dog to get the $$$ you haven't meet any good trust lawyers..- not that I think 12 mil is a wise amount - that much excess will encourage abuse without really benifiting the dog (or any one but those trust lawyers.
2007-08-29 13:26:20 · answer #7 · answered by ragapple 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
At least she cared about the dog. Its more than a lot of people would have done. As for burning in Hell, I guess that is between her and God.
2007-08-29 13:01:02 · answer #8 · answered by tarheelgirl 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the requisite for hell is leaving 12million dollars to a dog. In fact, I don't think that matters either way.
2007-08-29 13:14:02 · answer #9 · answered by mama woof 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jeff-She didn't give ALL her money to her dog.
She left millions to her children and millions to various charity's. Although I do think it was wrong of her to leave her grandchildren out of her will then leave 12mil to a dog. but who am I to judge..Its her prerogative.
2007-08-29 13:07:23 · answer #10 · answered by miss.marky 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋