Too Much Legalese for Your Pets?
I had a long conversation Friday afternoon with Kathleen Pender.
Ms. Pender is a well written and well respected writer for the San Francisco Chronicle.
She regularly reports on local, national and international economic and business events.
Recent stories have covered the failure of IndyMac Bank, the influx on foreign money and investment inroads into the United States, the still declining housing market, how the downgrading of bond insurers has a direct effect on the sock market and the basics of heath savings plans.
Our conversation was a little less complicated, as we discussed the newly passed California Pet Trust Statute.
As we talked about pet ownership, estate planning and the role of the Trustee and the Caretakers, she posed an interesting question.
Why, she queried, should the courts take up valuable time dealing with pet trusts, statutes, Trustees, estate issues with probate, emotional distress trials for pet owners, custodial disputes and other pet issues.
Surely there were more important items for the judges and courts to entertain.
My only response was that the courts are currently reviewing more and more of these issues, whether we like this change or not.
More households have pets than have children.
If pet owners did not have the passion and concern for their pets, they would not seek help from the courts.
If these cases were not brought in to the legal arena, they would not have the same import and legislators would not feel the need to enact more laws as the behest of their voters.
The Courts interpret the laws.
Legislators write the laws.
Laws that they deem necessary; to please their constituents.
The voters.
The role of pets in our lives will only increase as time passes.
http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/admin/trackback/81140
