Professional Thoughts on Pet Trusts
Attorney Steven D. Wegner of California recently posted some interesting comments on our blog.
He wrote:
"Professor Beyer is an acknowldeged authority in this area and I respect him enormously. I have read most if not all of his articles on line.
I take issue, though, with a statement made in his "Estate Planning for Non-Human Family Members" that a single sentence like "I leave $1,000 in trust for the care of my dog, Rover," can be effective. He says that laws like the one in Texas authorizing pet trusts can supply missing terms by having a court appoint a trustee or allowing interested persons to seek court intervenion if Rover is not receiving proper care.
Either of these actions would generate significant legal fees. The greater the cost of supplying missing terms or enforcing those the law provides, the greater the disincentive to take all necessary steps to insure Rover's well-being. Also, there is a TON of information that a simple bequest does not provide like a pet's medical history, his or her preferences and under what circumstances an end of life decision should be made.
For these and other reasons, I am a strong proponent of a comprehensive and detailed living trust that deals with all forseeable issues. Only in this manner can an owner insure that his or her beloved pet will be well cared for when the owner can no longer do so."
Check out Stevens' excellent webiste called CaliforniaPetLawyer.com, here.
Thanks for your thoughts.
http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/admin/trackback/161602
