Animal-Welfare Groups Appeal Decision in Court Case Over Helmsley Bequest

Three of the country’s largest animal-welfare organizations last week mounted a court challenge to the distribution of money from a foundation established through Leona M. Helmsley’s bequest.

The three groups are appealing a February court ruling that said the trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust did not have to limit the distribution of money to charities that focus on the care and welfare of dogs, a mission that Ms. Helmsley, a hotel owner, had outlined before she died in 2007.

A spokesman for the trustees said they would counter the charges in court, and noted that the trustees have defended their actions as appropriate.

Trustee Obligations

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and Maddie’s Fund jointly argued that the ruling by Judge Troy K. Webber of the New York Surrogate Court allowed Ms. Helmsley’s trustees to go against her original wishes to bequeath the bulk of her estate, worth an estimated $5.2-billion, to the care and welfare of dogs. Ms. Helmsley’s estate has not yet been settled, but when it is, her foundation could be among the 10 wealthiest in the United States.

Judge Webber’s ruling raised questions about the degree to which trustees of philanthropists’ estates are legally bound to disperse bequest money to causes designated by the donor. The exact nature of Ms. Helmsley’s wishes is under dispute.

Ms. Helmsley directed in a mission statement she signed in March 2004 that her foundation support the care and welfare of dogs. That statement revoked a similar document she signed in 2003 that said she wanted her foundation to support not only the care of dogs, but also “medical and health-care services for indigent people, with emphasis on providing care to children.”

In his ruling, Judge Webber found that the document that established the trust does not require that the trustees refer to the mission statement, and that it grants the trustees “sole discretion” to give money to any charity they choose.

The three animal-welfare groups acknowledge that the will and the mission statements give the trustees broad discretion. But they are protesting how little the trust gave to groups with an emphasis on helping dogs when it awarded its first grants in April.

Donor Intent

Of the 54 grants announced, worth a total of $136-million, nine canine groups, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, received one-year donations of $100,000 apiece. The remaining grants went to health and medical research programs for humans. Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society, said the trustees have substituted their own judgment for Ms. Helmsley’s.

“We’re not claiming that animal welfare supercedes any other charitable concern,” said Mr. Pacelle. “This is an issue of donor intent. It’s not consistent with Mrs. Helmsley’s wishes.”

The trustees have strongly defended their distribution of the money. A statement posted on the trust’s Web site says that in the eight years between the time she established the charitable trust and her death, Ms. Helmsley contributed more than $55-million to charitable causes and out of that only one gift, of $1,000, went to a canine charity.