There’s nothing quite like the bond an owner forms with her dog, and there’s nothing wrong with looking after your loved one after you pass on. But much like people who go a little overboard with their pets during their lives, some people tend to spoil them unnecessarily after the owner dies. In one such extreme case, Gail Posner, an heiress to her father’s fortune who recently died, decided to leave her Chihuahua, Conchita, with a $3 million trust fund, along with the privilege of remaining in her $8.3 million Miami Beach mansion. In order to guarantee Conchita’s proper treatment, Ms. Posner also left her bodyguards, housekeepers and a personal trainer $27 million, including $5 million to a housekeeper charged with caring for Conchita and two other dogs.

To make matters even worse, Ms. Posner’s only son, Brett Carr, was left with a measly $1 million, less than any of the staff or dogs. Unfortunately for Ms. Posner, rumors are now swirling that her staff tricked her during her final months battling cancer, leading her to believe her son was dangerous and convincing her to leave the money to them and the dogs, even going so far as to tell her that her dog could be the world’s most pampered dog. That title was entirely possible for Conchita, who had her own bedroom, bathroom, and her very own $15,000 Cartier necklace. In her will, the housekeeper is named as the dogs’ caregiver, and specifies that she can live rent-free in the mansion and inherit $5 million if she continues to care for the dogs in the lavish style to which they have become accustomed.

While the money is obviously Ms. Posner’s to distribute, there has to be an impartial party that can see no one in their right mind would leave that much money to an animal, no matter how special it was. Even if the money is donated instead of giving it to her son, there’s just no way that someone who was clear in the head would leave millions to employees, property to a pet, and nothing to her own son.

So what is acceptable to leave behind for your beloved pet? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with designating a new caretaker, and it even seems logical to leave behind money for the care, in the event of unexpected vet bills or if the person didn’t necessarily plan on having a pet. Dogs can be expensive and it seems like the right thing to do to account for that if the dog is used to certain food or has other specific needs. But something tells me the dog won’t notice if she doesn’t get a new Cartier necklace or sleeps on 300-thread count sheets instead of 1,000-count Egyptian cotton. I just hope a judge sees this in the same logical way, or else Conchita is going to have a tough time doling out her “inheritance” when it’s her time to pass. After all, a dog with no thumbs certainly can’t sign a will, can she?

Related Sources

Son: Aides made heiress leave millions to dogs, MSNBC