paw law
Planning. It’s Not A Matter of If You Should. It’s When.
–by Dionne M. Blaesing, Esq.
There have always been “animal people.” You know us. We have a silhouette sticker of our favorite animal breed on the rear window of our car. We have more pet supplies in our grocery cart than people food. National statics indicate that there are more “animal people” in this country than ever before and we are spending lots of money in the care of our pets.
the pet owner. The trust would terminate at the death of the last surviving pet. This statute cured the “honorary” problem. The statute
specifically allowed for the enforcement of the trust provisions by a person (trustee) designated in the trust. If no one was designat- ed, one could be appointed by the court. The statute also allowed that “as a person having an interest in the welfare of the animal” the trustee had standing before the court to request the designa- tion of a caretaker and/or request the removal of a caretaker. As to the assets, money, accounts, real property, etc., set aside
for the pet's care, the law restricted its use to care of the animal(s). If the value of the assets of the trust exceeded the cost of its intend- ed use or if any portion of the asset remained after the death of the final surviving animal, the statute set a priority list as to who got the unused assets. As a stand-alone trust, The Pet Trust allowed its trustee to have enforcement power comparable to a human trust beneficiary. And the statute did not require that one actually own or have possession of the animal(s) which one intended to provide for in a pet trust. The past tense has been used when referring to Fl. St.
737.116, because the statute was repealed as of July 1, 2007 and replaced by Fl. St. 736.0408, entitled “Trust for the Care of an Animal” which is current law. It retains the essential elements of the old statute, using the same criteria for which animals may be included and for when the trust terminates, but clarifies three areas:
1. Fl. St. 736.0110 (2) (Others Treated As Qualified
Emmie, a French Bulldog we met at Tampa’s Copeland Park During the Doggie Paddle. Photographed by Anna Cooke.
Many folks sliding from middle age to the next phase of life
(which shall remain forever unnamed by this writer), are con- cerned about the care of their pets after they are gone. We don’t trust our kids to properly, according to our way of thinking, feed and care for our beloved pets; we secretly suspect the kids are jeal- ous that we spend money on our pets, thereby diminishing our inheritable estate. For years in Florida, we pet lovers were able to set up a trust
provision in our last will and testament, naming a chosen caretak- er and allocating money for pet care purposes. The problem was that the caretaker could pocket that money and drop off the pet at the local shelter or animal services facility (or even worse — have the pet euthanized) without any legal liability. It was an honorary trust; the caretaker was on his/her honor to care for the pet, but if he/she had no honor, too bad for the pet. Then In 2002, the Florida legislature enacted Fl. St. 737.116
entitled “Trust for the Care of Animals” commonly referred to as the Pet Trust. The statute allowed a pet owner to provide for the continuing care of animal(s) (even those animals which sane folks have trouble labeling as pets) which were living during the life of
72 THE NEW BARKER
Beneficiaries) provides that the person appointed to enforce a trust, or the trustee, created for the care of an animal or another non-charitable purpose as provided in 736.0408 or 736.0409, has the rights of a qualified beneficiary under this code. 2. FL. St. 736.0402 exempts the pet trust from the trust for-
mation requirement of having a definite human or corporate ben- eficiary. 3. Fl. St. 736.0408 states that assets not needed for the intend-
ed use, are distributed back to the living pet owner, to his/her estate, or as otherwise instructed in his/her trust document. Be aware that a court will always use a reasonable person
standard, which is why hotel magnate Leona Helmsley had prob- lems trying to leave millions in trust for the care of one dog. Florida and the IRS allow for the allocation of assets for care of your pet(s), and even for distribution of non-used assets to pet charities, or other entities of your choosing. Consult a knowledge- able attorney for more information.
U Y
Dionne M. Blaesing, PA practice areas include animal law and veterinary malpractice. She has a 20-year background in vet-
erinary science and served on the board of Suncoast SPCA for 10 years. Dionne may be reached at 727.992.9115.
DionneBlaesing.com
www.TheNewBarker.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
