Grandkids stiffed...$12m goes to trouble

Damocles said:
No, a trust fund does not give animals or inanimate objects rights regardless of the amount that might be in the fund. It is because of the human rights of the originator that the fund can be set aside, not because of the dog. Without the trust being set up (human agent) the dog can't even legally inherit anything, the suggestion in a will would be rejected and the money would go to an immediate human relative.
Click to expand...
I agee with that, but you are mixing apples with oranges The dog now has additional rights that he didn't have before. However, he can't act upon themhikmself, only the caretaker can.
 
Damocles said:
No, a trust fund does not give animals or inanimate objects rights regardless of the amount that might be in the fund. It is because of the human rights of the originator that the fund can be set aside, not because of the dog. Without the trust being set up (human agent) the dog can't even legally inherit anything, the suggestion in a will would be rejected and the money would go to an immediate human relative.
Click to expand...
I agee with that, but you are mixing apples with oranges The dog now has additional rights that he didn't have before. However, he can't act upon them himself, only the caretaker can.
 
uscitizen said:
Damo was just yankin chains, sorry to get Donnie back on it ;)
Click to expand...
It doesn't bother me. I speak of the law directly. The dog is an object of the trust and not a beneficiary, an animal cannot be the beneficiary. If he could there would be no need for the trust to begin with you could just will the money to the animal, which you cannot.

In such a case, the money is directly willed, where a person with rights is involved that cannot care for the money themselves the state would set up a trust on their behalf. In this case the state would reject property as having rights to be a beneficiary they would simply cancel that section of the document and give the mony to the next of kin in succession by state law.

Pretending that, oh let's say a private park suddenly has rights because it is the object of a trust, such as this dog is, is ridiculous. It, nor the dog, has any rights. It is simply the object of a protective trust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top