FTA: Geldermann has been raising and showing Cavaliers for 25 years. "They're edible, they're like potato chips. No one has just one Cavalier," she says.

That's sick!

Tr0mBoNe: FTA: Geldermann has been raising and showing Cavaliers for 25 years. "They're edible, they're like potato chips. No one has just one Cavalier," she says.

That's sick!

I wonder how LeBron James tastes?

FTFA: "When people originally set up trusts, they said I'm giving $10,000 to Dan, I want him to use it for my dog. Once it got into Dan's hands, the trust didn't have any teeth. Dan could do whatever he wanted," says Dan Meek, a Florida attorney who writes Pettrustlawblog.com.

How would someone use 10K on a dog? Put it through community college?

Ace Attorney: I wonder how LeBron James tastes?

Slightly salty?

How would someone use 10K on a dog? Put it through community college?

Maybe the dog couldn't get into Muttgers University.

Judi Geldermann of Carmel has already put $50,000 into a trust for her three Cavalier King Charles Spaniels: Duet, 12, Beth, 5, and Bronson, 3.

If I cared for those dogs, they live 30 years or longer, at least until the trust ran out.

Coddling pets is pathetic and vulgar enough as it is, but with all the poor and dying people in the world out there today this is truly disgusting.

What's the big deal? People should be able to leave their money to whoever or whatever they want.

Maybe all the people they know are a**holes, who knows.

Homero_G: Coddling pets is pathetic and vulgar enough as it is, but with all the poor and dying people in the world out there today this is truly disgusting.

The opposite is just as bad. Take care of your pets properly (food, medical, attention) or don't f*cking have them.

Homero_G: Coddling pets is pathetic and vulgar enough as it is, but with all the poor and dying people in the world out there today this is truly disgusting.

Oddly enough, some of those people have pets or animals they use for warmth/companionship or food, respectively.

Homero_G 2008-07-27 09:21:25 PM
Coddling pets is pathetic and vulgar enough as it is, but with all the poor and dying people in the world out there today this is truly disgusting.

The fact that it disgusts you is just icing on the cake. In fact, in your honor I'm going to kick in an extra $10K just so my cats can eat sashimi out of gold bowls once I'm gone.

Homero_G: Coddling pets is pathetic and vulgar enough as it is, but with all the poor and dying people in the world out there today this is truly disgusting.

There are also families out there that would just as soon dump a family member's much loved pet on the street rather than taking care of them - maybe this can stop some of that.

Also, if you're going to the trouble of putting a clause in your trust for your pets, you've probably got enough assets that some of them are going to charitable causes anyway.

I'm also guessing you might not have any pets.

If your pets outlive you, it's only right that you provide for them. I would like to have this option; my pets are my children (not having real ones).

Now, donating millions to one animal when there are people and other animals in need is selfish, but apparenlty the American way. I would hope that people would have a trust that could provide reasonable expenses for their pet after their death and put the rest toward charity, but we can't all have what we want.

Think people, this law isn't about pets but about lawyers bilking the rich out of money by taking a small stipend for the care of the pets.

My bet is fluffy gets dropped in an incenerator on the way home and the lawyer just keeps charging his fees to the estate.

It's about time. Pets are more important than dumbass, ungrateful kids. Every state should adopt this law.

At least they aren't taking a sub prime loan against the equity in their home. My grandfather said that's what you do if you hate your kids. When you pass on, it all goes to the bank.

So apparently you could not make a trust for a specific purpose before. My question is, why make a special case for pets? Why not say "here is a trust for XYZ cause" and it has to be used for that? This is what's wrong with our legal system today. Lots of stupid useless laws for this and that special case and nothing for what you need at any given time. Make-work for lawyers, nothing more.

"after you turn toes up to the daisies", your precious one will be piddling on them.

Whatever happened to just asking someone to take care of your dumbass cats when you die? That's what I've always planned to do.

My pets are my responsibility. I took them in and will provide for them until they die. If I go before them I want to make sure they are cared for properly. My responsibilities come first, then charity.

When I die, I'll have my money burned before giving it to a charity. Charities haven't done shiat for me so I'm not going to do anything for them.

It's actually a fairly common sort of law. TFA states that 40 states already have similar laws.

People with money do strange things.

Your dog wants FDIC.

When I die I plan on having my pets buried with me so they can keep me company in the afterlife.

/My pets and my servants.
//Once my organs are removed and preserved.
///And I get wrapped up in cloth.

Honorary trusts like this are not unusual in other states. In many states you can also set up a trust to have someone take care of personal property like a car for a fixed number of years (I think it's 20 but I don't remember for sure). And generally, the trustee is not going to be the lawyer, it's going to be another family member or trusted friend. Sure, the lawyer makes money forming the trust, but that's it.

Plenty of people have loads of money, and who are we to tell them what to do with it? If there's something that they care about, why shouldn't they be able to see to that thing's well being after they're gone?

Vermilionphoenix: My pets are my responsibility. I took them in and will provide for them until they die. If I go before them I want to make sure they are cared for properly. My responsibilities come first, then charity.

THIS

You take on a pet, you're effectively making a contract with it that you will provide food, shelter, care, and companionship in return for companionship, unconditional acceptance and love.

To those wondering "why not just ask someone to take care of it?". . . that may work for a cat or dog, but what about my (hypothetical) hyacinth macaw, which, if I got it now, could outlive me by 20 years if I live to be 100? It also may not like anyone else in the family (I've known people who had to interview people outside the family to find someone who could take in the parrot a relative left behind, in the parrot's opinion).

I don't think it should be something ridiculous (though I also don't think anyone but the person in control of the money should decide what to do with it), but whatever pet I have should be provided for after I go if I have the means (the responsible thing being to make the means), meaning covering vet bills, specialized food if it's needed, that sort of thing.

/No, I wouldn't seriously consider a Hyacinth, or any, macaw, or amazon parrot for that matter
//If I had something that big I'd make arrangements with some sort of professional animal place (zoo, sanctuary, whatever) if possible, along with a decent monetary donation

>saluteyourshorts: When I die, I'll have my money burned before giving it to a charity. Charities haven't done shiat for me so I'm not going to do anything for them.

Charities have helped provide places for the homeless to stay at night and maybe even work or something constructive to do during the day. That way you don't have to keep shooing them off your lawn and hosing their excrement off your doorstep, and instead can spend your time being a jackass on fark.

The California legislature and the actor pretending (poorly) to be a Governor are the definition of dysfunctional.

I think the asshats who are going to set aside excessive amounts of dough for Fifi are disgusting, but leaving a reasonable amount to care for an animal is a great idea. Would you rather they go to a shelter where they will be fed and cared for by public funds until they are inevitably destroyed? Or hoisted off on some poor surviving relative who doesn't want them but feels guilty? Nothing wrong with making sure you aren't leaving a mess behind you.

dogslobber buttlube: Margaret says that animals should be donated to the local homeless shelter for food because humans are more important. Grilled doggie should be particularly tasty. All those poor starving humans we see on the streets need caring for and feeding. Problem solved.

That's real Swift of you.

It's just a pet. It isn't a child. It is a dog, cat, whatever. The blurring of this line is one of the symptoms of what's wrong with this country.

We have too much money, we are too afraid of dying, and we feel like crap because of it. So we latch on to animals and turn to Anthropomorphism because we need to seen human characteristics in animals. This is because we feel safer getting these feelings from animals because they can't reject us. We turn them into "children", even though they don't have the capacity to be "children".

They are animals folks. They aren't people. I've had dogs die, and I've felt sad because I liked them. But it isn't even close to having an actual person die. People are more important than animals.

Absolutely a good law. I don't have pets, but my friends who have them want to ensure that whoever takes them after their death doesn't end up having to spend money out of pocket. Set aside a few thousand. After the death of the pet, give the rest to the humane society/nearby no-kill shelter/whatever.

I've put these in plenty of wills/trusts.

Homero, iams: to paraphrase Mark Twain, the more I read shyte like yours, the better I like my dogs.

All this bill did was make sure peoples' money goes where they direct it -- if you wanna give your own money away, go make some.

I suspect the real beneficiaries here will be the animal advocacy organizations who will often get the leftovers after Fido passes on. And I call that a good thing, too.