Rescue Group Supports Connecticut Pet Trust Legislation
I recently wrote about the proposed legislation in Connecticut regarding statutory pet trusts and have received many different responses.
I posted some of them here.
Apparently, this issue has really struck a nerve during these difficult economic times, as I continue to receive additional comments.
The most recent one is here, written by Robin;
"I volunteer with an Animal Rescue group in CT and I also have seven cats of my own. I've seen, too many times, when an owner dies or goes into Assisted Living, that their pets are either euthanized or there's a crazy rush to find placement in a foster home or shelter for the animal. Often, those animals, themselves, are sick or elderly. It's difficult and time consuming to find older animals homes and many end up dying while waiting for placement. It hits the Rescue groups in the pocket since we can barely afford food and litter and now we have to come up with medical care costs, too. We could do far more to save more animals if we didn't have the burden of caring for pets without Trusts.
What this Bill would do is to allow Rescue groups to place animals with senior citizens (which rescue groups are reluctant to do now) without fear that those placements would be bad for the animal. This would also allow so many MORE animals to find homes, it might very positively effect the number of animals that die every year---and we're STILL looking at MILLIONS of animals being killed due to overcrowding in Shelters.
"Yes, the Economy stinks and there are many problems in this world. Regardless of the timing, it's something simple that can be done and put into effect NOW. It's a quick fix to a long term problem. Let's fix it and move on. I think it's a GREAT idea and I hope the Bill is passed and other states join us..."
You can visit their website here.
Reader Opposes Pet Trust Legislation in Connecticut
On Thursday, March 12, in the Ridgefieldpress.com, a reader responded to a follow–up story that I posted about here on March 11.2009.
The reader’s response is to the filing of a bill in the Connecticut Legislature by State Senator Toni Boucher calling for the introduction oa statutory Pet Trust.
The readers comment is below:
"#1 marthamad
2009-03-1206:37:37 You kidding me? The world is falling apart and Boucher is worried about trust funds for dogs? People can't pay their mortgages and she's working to make sure Fido doesn't run out of Grey Poupon! This is why we elected her to the Senate?"
Let us know your response.
Oklahoma is Not Okay for Pet Trusts
Although previous attempts for a Statutory Pet Trust have been tried in the Oklahoma legislature, to date they have been unsuccessful.
This is the text of the previously proposed bill.
"TRUST FOR CARE OF ANIMAL
A. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.
B. A trust authorized by this section may be enforced by a person appointed in the terms of the trust or, if no person is so appointed, by a person appointed by the court. A person having an interest in the welfare of the animals may request the court to appoint a person to enforce the trust or to remove a person appointed.
C. Property of a trust authorized by this section may be applied only to its intended use, except to the extent the court determines that the value of the trust property exceeds the amount required for the intended use, considering the current and future needs of the animals. Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, property not required for the intended use must be distributed to the settlor, if then living, otherwise to the settlor’s successors in interest. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the settlor may specifically override this provision by specific reference and prevent the distribution of property in excess of the intended use until all the animals are deceased or as otherwise provided for by the terms of the trust."
Because there is no Statutory Pet Trust, a trust that is set up for a pet in Oklahoma would probably violate the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP).
This arcane law is as convoluted as any laymen or attorney can imagine. But, essentially it was established to prohibit property from being held perpetually in trust. So, with some twists and variations, RAP voids any agreement which does not end twenty-one years after a life in being, or one generation from lives presently in being plus twenty-one years.
Still confused? Don’t worry thousands of pages of legal arguments and interpretations have been written on this rule.
Currently under Oklahoma law, as in most states, domestic animals and tamed wild animals are personal property Therefore, the animals are unable to own other property or become a beneficiary under a will.
We are unaware of any court cases on the Appellate level in Oklahoma that have directly ruled on these issues.
Although given the current trend throughout the country, one could assume that the Court would try to lend credence and legal standing to this estate planning documentation.
However, they would still have to deal with the time issue of the RAP period and the court would likely limit the trust's duration to the twenty-one-year perpetuities period.
The simple solution is for Oklahoma to get on board with the majority of the country and pass a Statutory Pet Trust.
Share Your Tomb with Your Pet?
We write on numerous occasions about Statutory Pet Trusts, Powers of Attorney for your pet, Will Clauses to provide for your pet and the selection of an appropriate trustee and a caretaker.
We have even reviewed your ability to clone your pet.
There is also an additional option, at least in the State of Florida.
A change in the Florida Statutes, now allows for an additional authorized function for cemeteries.
Under Statute 497.273, the following power is provided.
"4) This chapter does not prohibit the interment or entombment of the inurned cremated animal remains of the decedent's pet or pets with the decedent's human remains or cremated human remains if:
(a) The human remains or cremated human remains are not commingled with the inurned cremated animal remains; and
(b) The interment or entombment with the inurned cremated animal remains is with the authorization of the decedent or other legally authorized person."
So, if you keep the remains of you and your pet separate and agree to the inurnment, in Florida at least, you can take your pet with you.
Estate planning for you and your pet?
Maybe, maybe not.
This is a little too much planning for me.
Kentucky has Options for Statutory Pet Trust
I have a number of hunting dogs that provide both business and pleasure to me and my kids. They actually are a valuable asset of my business. Should I set up a Pet Trust for them?
Bo Paducah, Kentucky
Bo…Kentucky is in the minority of states in that there is no Statutory Pet Trust legislation that has been passed by your Commonwealth.
However, Kentucky was one of the early leaders in recognizing the desire of pet owners to prepare for the future of their pets.
In 1927, the case of Willett v. Willett, 247 S.W. 739 (Ky. Ct. App. 1923) was a landmark decision in that it was the first time an appellate court considered a will contest that arose as a result of a gift to an animal.
In Willett, the testatrix ( the one who wrote the will) devised her entire estate to her sister for life, then to her church with the exception of $1,000.00 which is to be used…
"for the support of our dog 'Dick,' if the interest is not sufficient for him to be kept in comfort, that is being well fed, have a bed in the house by a fire and treated well every day, that the principal be used to such a sum so it will last his lifetime. . . Dicky must have three meals daily..."
The trial court held the clause for Dicky's support to be invalid, because…
"(1) there is no trustee, and (2) a dog cannot take as a devisee under our law."
However, the Kentucky Supreme Court rejected these arguments, and stated that a trust should never fail for lack of a trustee. The court further reasoned that if no trustee was willing or able to serve, the court could appoint a trustee.
In addition, the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the will as creating a trust for the benefit of the dog, not as a gift directly to the dog.
The Kentucky court declared that a testamentary gift for the care of a specific animal is a humane purpose, and thus was valid under a state statute permitting testamentary gifts and trusts for charitable or humane purposes.
Finally the Court, set out its opinion on the difference between a charity and a humane purpose, stating that
"[c]harity extends to every one of a class, while . . . a humane purpose . . . moves a person to take care of or feed a single hungry person, bird or dog."
Thus, the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the pet provisions in Willett because of an express statutory provision permitting trusts for humane purposes.
Even though you are in a state that has not authorized a specific Statutory Pet Trust, you can still plan to provide for the care of your pets with the preparation of the correct legal documents. There are alternate methods that will be accepted and approved by the courts.
We have discussed those options before.
Review them and discuss them with your family, attorney, financial adviser and accountant.
Then make a plan.
No Pet Trusts in Connecticut
I live in Barkhamsted, Connecticut and have a two year old Otterhound named Oscar. Can you tell me if my state recognizes pet trusts?
Kacey
Kacey, we went straight to the source on this one.
According to Sandra Norman-Eady, Chief Attorney, during the 2005 regular session of the Connecticut General Assembly, an Act Concerning the Creation of Trusts for the Care of Domestic Animals, was introduced to the legislature.
“The bill authorized trusts for the care of domestic animals that are alive when the person who created the trust dies. It allowed a natural person, corporation, limited liability company, trust, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association, or any other legal entity to be selected as trustee.
Under the bill, the trust would have terminated on the earlier of the following occurrences: (1) when the animal died, or if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal, when the last surviving animal died; or (2) 90 years after its creation.
A person appointed in the trust could enforce it. If no one was named, the bill allowed a court to appoint someone to enforce it. It allowed a person having an interest in the animal's welfare to ask the court to appoint a person to enforce the trust or to remove a person appointed.
The bill specified that trust property authorized to care for an animal could be applied only for its intended use, except to the extent the court determined that the trust's value exceeded the amount required for the intended use. Except as otherwise provided in the trust, property not required for the intended use had to be distributed to the settlor, if living. (A settlor is the person who creates a trust and transfers property to it. ) Otherwise, it had to be distributed to the settlor's successors in interest. The bill permitted a trustee to be designated as the person who received the trust assets when the animal the trust benefits died.
The bill was referred to and voted out of the Judiciary Committee. However, it ultimately died in the Judiciary Committee upon recommitment by the Senate.”
No additional legislation has been passed in this area.
Therefore, Connecticut remains in the minority as one of only eleven states that does not recognize a statutory pet trust.
We have written before however, here , that you can still provide for your pet's future with an inter vivos trust or with a will provision in your current estate plan.
Contact your legislators if your want Connecticut to join the main stream of thought in this area.
With or without a statutory pet trust, you can do estate planning for your pets.
It is the responsible thing to do.
No Pet Trust In Delaware?
Although pet lovers in Delaware have been trying for over five years, the legislature has consistently failed to pass a Statutory Pet Trust in that jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, pet owners in Delaware are not out of options in the event that they want to provide estate planning for their pets.
Professor Gerry W. Beyer is a faculty member of the Texas Tech University School of Law. Professor Beyer is an invaluable source and resource for all involved in the field of estate planning for animal owners. His website is full of updated information regarding this area.
A prolific author and public speaker, Dr. Beyer writes that the “traditional pet trust” is effective in all states, even those without the Statutory Pet Trust.
According to Professor Beyer,” Many pet owners will prefer the traditional pet trust because it provides the pet owner with the ability to have tremendous control over the pet’s care. For example, you may specify who manages the property (the trustee), the pet’s caregiver (the beneficiary), what type of expenses relating to the pet the trustee will pay, the type of care the animal will receive, what happens if the beneficiary can no longer care for the animal, and the disposition of the pet after the pet dies.”
If you live in a state that has not authorized a specific Statutory Pet Trust, you can still plan to provide for the care of your pets with the preparation of the correct legal documents. There are alternate methods that will be accepted and approved by the courts.
Can You Direct Euthanasia for Your Pets in Your Will?
Many pet owners, who have devoted a great deal of their lives to their animals, believe that if they are no longer around to take care of them, no one else will be equal to the task.
Some may rationalize that it would be better for their pets not to survive, then to be placed into a facility or a home where they might be treated poorly.
Pet owners have tried to eliminate this possibility by inserting a clause into their will that directs that euthanasia be utilized upon their animals at the death of the owner.
Ida Capers of Pennsylvania passed away in 1963. At the time of her death, she had two pet Irish Setters. Ms. Capers inserted a clause into her will that stated:
"I direct that any dog which I may own at the time of my death be destroyed in a humane matter and I give and grant unto my Executors hereinafter named full and complete power and discretion necessary to carry out the same."
The public outcry again this action eventually led the court to decide that the clause was invalid and void as against public policy. In re Capers Estate, 34 Pa. D. & C.2d 121, 122 (1964).
Since that early case, a long line of court decisions have followed that reasoning and subsequently, clauses of this nature are generally not upheld.
As we have seen in other postings, many states and even cities are leading the way in providing their citizens needed information on estate planning for their pets
Many states have authorized the establishment of Statutory Pet Trusts and the courts are slowly but constantly moving toward the acknowledgement of more rights for pet owners.
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York is one of the organizations that is providing extensive information in this area.
Their brochure of public information provides some insight into the area of pet euthanasia. A part of the booklet provides:
“Provisions in a Will directing that an animal be euthanized upon the death of its owner have been invalidated by the courts. While a pet owner may feel it is important to protect a pet from subsequent mistreatment or a "bad home," it is questionable whether a healthy pet's life must end by euthanasia when its owner dies. Nevertheless, if a pet owner wishes to provide for euthanasia, it is preferable to specify in a Will that the pet be cared for by the Executor or a friend for a period of time and ask that this person attempt to find a good home for the pet, and if no home is found after a specified reasonable period of time, that the animal may betaken for euthanasia. A court may be less likely to overturn such a provision”
The entire document can be viewed here.
On final thought by the New York City Bar is somewhat ominous,
“It should be noted that if you bequeath your animal to a friend or relative, that person becomes the owner and has all the rights and obligations of the pet's care, including the right to euthanize the animal.”
Does your friend love your animal as much as you?
