May 31, 2007 | Read Time: 2 minutes
The Salvation Army and Greenpeace have resolved a dispute over a $264-million bequest from an heir to the UPS fortune.
Greenpeace has received $27-million from the estate, the environmental group’s largest gift ever, and the Salvation Army received its $33-million share.
The conflict arose after Hector Guy Di Stefano died in July at the age of 90, leaving a will directing that his estate, primarily stock in the UPS Company from his late wife’s father, be divided evenly among the Salvation Army, Greenpeace, and six other charities.
But Greenpeace was named in the estate document as Greenpeace International, a group that was dissolved and absorbed into the related Greenpeace Fund about seven months before Mr. Di Stefano’s death.
To straighten out the confusion, Bank of America, the estate’s trustee, filed a petition with a Washington State court, asking for clarification on the name change. In response, the Salvation Army stepped in to dispute Greenpeace’s claim on the estate, arguing that the Greenpeace organization Mr. Di Stefano named in his will was defunct and that its successor was not eligible to receive the gift.
None of the six other trust beneficiaries — the American Humane Association (Englewood, Colo.), Direct Relief International (Santa Barbara, Calif.), the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust (Cold Spring, Ky.), the Santa Barbara Hospice Foundation, the Visiting Nurse & Hospice Care of Santa Barbara, and the World Wildlife Fund (Washington) — challenged the will.
The dispute was resolved in a mediation hearing set before a scheduled trial this spring. Under terms of the accord, the charities are barred from talking about the settlement.
Thomas W. Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace, declined to say why Greenpeace received $27-million, $6-million less than the amount it was originally allotted.
Mr. Wetterer says that since Greenpeace International, which shared offices and staff with the Greenpeace Fund, was dissolved in late 2005, the organization has fielded few inquiries about the change. But, he says, in light of the recent dispute, the organization is considering ways to better inform donors and potential donors.
“I guess this is something that could happen when organizations have related entities, or go by different names,” Mr. Wetterer says. “We want to preserve the intent of the donor who wants to give to Greenpeace, give to its work on the environment.”
A Salvation Army spokeswoman, Kathy Lovin, would not comment beyond the two-sentence statement issued by the eight charities following the settlement, which said that the “parties fully believed in the positions they advanced.”
