"He would never cut off funds to his own f—ing dog!"
October 2, 2015 12:07 PM Subscribe
The Simpsons co-creator Sam Simon was a philanthropist and animal lover who gave millions and millions of dollars to various organizations, especially after he was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2012. PETA's headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, is named after Simon, as is a 182-foot ship used by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Simon died earlier this year, at which time the Sam Simon Foundation was established by a trust he had set up. The Foundation is now under fire for not continuing to support Simon's pet causes, including the MY Sam Simon and his dog, Columbo, a rescued Cane Corso, "a mastiff breed that some people consider a pit bull on steroids" whose care may cost more than $140,000 a year.
Yes, more photos of Columbo looking schmoopy, please.
posted by alex_skazat at 12:18 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by alex_skazat at 12:18 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
$7500 a month for aggression training (which is actually being done by the new owner of the dog) and $3600 a month for dog acupuncture, because apparently the aggression training doesn't work well enough.
Rich people.
posted by smackfu at 12:18 PM on October 2, 2015 [21 favorites]
Rich people.
posted by smackfu at 12:18 PM on October 2, 2015 [21 favorites]
Today I learned I need to move to LA and become a dog acupuncturist.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:32 PM on October 2, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:32 PM on October 2, 2015 [17 favorites]
there are easier ways to make money than to stick needles into aggressive dogs because rich people.
in fact, yeah, that sounds like one of the worst ways.
posted by entropone at 12:34 PM on October 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
in fact, yeah, that sounds like one of the worst ways.
posted by entropone at 12:34 PM on October 2, 2015 [15 favorites]
Is that just danger money for sticking pins in a 125 lb fucking dog with aggression problems?
posted by howfar at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by howfar at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Rich people.
Very rich people who gave tremendously towards animal welfare, and who ask not-rich people to carry the torch for them when they're gone.
posted by zippy at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
Very rich people who gave tremendously towards animal welfare, and who ask not-rich people to carry the torch for them when they're gone.
posted by zippy at 12:35 PM on October 2, 2015 [4 favorites]
To be honest I'd be aggressive if I couldn't speak and someone kept sticking pins in me.
posted by howfar at 12:36 PM on October 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by howfar at 12:36 PM on October 2, 2015 [16 favorites]
Trustees are usually hired to be kind of soulless--they're supposed to be the ones to make the practical decisions when everybody else is tied up in having feelings. But I think in this case, that kind of attitude is leading to them just seeing it as a money sink, even though it was a money sink that seems to have been entirely in line with the decedent's wishes. Claiming he was in a haze as he got sick--that might be true, but I just can't imagine any super-rich person with a special needs pet not picturing that the pet in question was going to continue to live the same way they always had. I mean, I'm not rich, but if someone took my older cat after something happened to me and started feeding her the cheap food that upsets her stomach just because it's cheaper, you can bet I'd be turning over in my grave.
I might have rolled my eyes about how this guy spent his money while he was alive, but at this point it does seem to be more about "animals just aren't worth that much". I'm not a vegan or a PETA supporter or any of that but I do believe that people are entitled to care about what they care about and that as long as we allow inheritance at all, that provisions made for animals and charitable giving should be given equal respect to any other wishes of the decedent. If he was already paying that much a month for his dog, the least appropriate point to object to this is after he's dead.
posted by Sequence at 12:39 PM on October 2, 2015 [26 favorites]
I might have rolled my eyes about how this guy spent his money while he was alive, but at this point it does seem to be more about "animals just aren't worth that much". I'm not a vegan or a PETA supporter or any of that but I do believe that people are entitled to care about what they care about and that as long as we allow inheritance at all, that provisions made for animals and charitable giving should be given equal respect to any other wishes of the decedent. If he was already paying that much a month for his dog, the least appropriate point to object to this is after he's dead.
posted by Sequence at 12:39 PM on October 2, 2015 [26 favorites]
It's also kind of odd to get paid full market price to perform a service on what is now your own dog.
posted by smackfu at 12:43 PM on October 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 12:43 PM on October 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
But I think in this case, that kind of attitude is leading to them just seeing it as a money sink, even though it was a money sink that seems to have been entirely in line with the decedent's wishes.
The legal obligation of the trustees is to act in accordance with the aims of the trust. If the aims of the trust do not include money for dog acupuncture then they have a duty not to spend money on it.
posted by howfar at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
The legal obligation of the trustees is to act in accordance with the aims of the trust. If the aims of the trust do not include money for dog acupuncture then they have a duty not to spend money on it.
posted by howfar at 12:46 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would like to alert everyone to the fact that you will be able to bid on Sam Simon's homemade Simpsons yarmulkes on October 22.
posted by theodolite at 12:50 PM on October 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 12:50 PM on October 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I would like to alert everyone to the fact that you will be able to bid on Sam Simon's homemade Simpsons yarmulkes on October 22.
From the description: "Suede, appears hand drawn, with images of Homer, and Bart, writings in Hebrew".
I was not aware that "Yo, Man!" and "Bart!" were Hebrew expressions, but who am I to argue with the experts at Sotheby's.
posted by jedicus at 12:57 PM on October 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
From the description: "Suede, appears hand drawn, with images of Homer, and Bart, writings in Hebrew".
I was not aware that "Yo, Man!" and "Bart!" were Hebrew expressions, but who am I to argue with the experts at Sotheby's.
posted by jedicus at 12:57 PM on October 2, 2015 [8 favorites]
It's also kind of odd to get paid full market price to perform a service on what is now your own dog.
He clears that up in the article, though - says that dog requires five hours or more of training a day, and while he's training this dog, he's not training other dogs.
Honestly it sounds more like, 'The trust thinks that a clear priority of the deceased is actually insane, so they're stopping it.' But that's not what trusts are supposed to do. They're supposed to act with what the wishes actually were, not what they wish they would be.
I think it's important to read also that this dog has already maimed people,
and that the guy who is now its trainer has two small children. The idea of an enclosure for the dog so it can't maim or kill people doesn't seem crazy. I mean, imagine the guy had a pet tiger, I could well see the bill for that reaching similar levels.
posted by corb at 12:57 PM on October 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
He clears that up in the article, though - says that dog requires five hours or more of training a day, and while he's training this dog, he's not training other dogs.
Honestly it sounds more like, 'The trust thinks that a clear priority of the deceased is actually insane, so they're stopping it.' But that's not what trusts are supposed to do. They're supposed to act with what the wishes actually were, not what they wish they would be.
I think it's important to read also that this dog has already maimed people,
and that the guy who is now its trainer has two small children. The idea of an enclosure for the dog so it can't maim or kill people doesn't seem crazy. I mean, imagine the guy had a pet tiger, I could well see the bill for that reaching similar levels.
posted by corb at 12:57 PM on October 2, 2015 [13 favorites]
It's also kind of odd to get paid full market price to perform a service on what is now your own dog.
*meh* He responds reasonably to that - this displaces paid presumably full-price work - and the article says they also offered to halve the rate. It may be his own dog but it's his dog because he agreed to take it for a dying friend, not necessarily because he wanted this dog in his life.
That said, some of the "well we might have to stop doing stuff and maybe he'll get violent and we have our kids here" is pretty big nonsense. If you're going to forgo actually necessary violence prevention for a dog that is spending time with your kids then maybe you need a talk with protective services. If that assertion is true then you get over your nonsense about the second choice being an inferior place for the dog or you keep up the treatment for the sake of your family and other dogs.
posted by The Archbishop of Foggy Bottom at 12:58 PM on October 2, 2015
*meh* He responds reasonably to that - this displaces paid presumably full-price work - and the article says they also offered to halve the rate. It may be his own dog but it's his dog because he agreed to take it for a dying friend, not necessarily because he wanted this dog in his life.
That said, some of the "well we might have to stop doing stuff and maybe he'll get violent and we have our kids here" is pretty big nonsense. If you're going to forgo actually necessary violence prevention for a dog that is spending time with your kids then maybe you need a talk with protective services. If that assertion is true then you get over your nonsense about the second choice being an inferior place for the dog or you keep up the treatment for the sake of your family and other dogs.
posted by The Archbishop of Foggy Bottom at 12:58 PM on October 2, 2015
This being LA, I have a colleague who is taking her dog for acupuncture treatments, but it's for mobility issues, not aggression. The lede mentions that the dog walks "like a 12-year-old, not a 5-year-old", so I assumed it was to help him walk.
Fascinating story and I wonder if it will have any affect on the trust's actions (or lack of same).
posted by mogget at 12:58 PM on October 2, 2015
Fascinating story and I wonder if it will have any affect on the trust's actions (or lack of same).
posted by mogget at 12:58 PM on October 2, 2015
I was not aware that "Yo, Man!" and "Bart!" were Hebrew expressions, but who am I to argue with the experts at Sotheby's.
It's a language that people use. Why wouldn't you be able to say anything you damn well please in it?
posted by dilaudid at 12:59 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a language that people use. Why wouldn't you be able to say anything you damn well please in it?
posted by dilaudid at 12:59 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm seriously side-eyeing anyone who places a dog with a serious bite history (including goddamn maulings, but assuming at least that this is a dog with a Level 5 bite history) who needs the kind of ongoing management this one apparently does in a household with children. That seems incredibly irresponsible. I can see the costs for that kind of work being reasonable, but at a certain point this is the kind of dog--assuming that the descriptions that his trainers are giving is accurate--who needs to be considered a candidate for euthanasia for behavior issues.
I have a pretty good idea of what managing a dog with severe issues as they're describing entails, and in my opinion this is the sort of dog that you either look after, personally, taking on full responsibility for the dog and your own safety... or you euthanize the dog and give him a good death, surrounded by people who love him. That kind of constant worry and maintaining a household that won't put anyone in danger is just not something that it's acceptable to shunt onto anyone else. And like I said, it's absolutely not anything compatible with children, let alone a business where people are coming through. That's not fair to anyone. If I was in that situation--assuming that my own, personal, totally beloved dog was in the situation he's describing--well, I'd ask that she be euthanized after my death. It would be sad, but not as sad as hearing that a human or another dog was disfigured or killed because she wasn't managed well enough.
(Thank goodness my dog doesn't have a bite history. Thank goodness she doesn't need that kind of care. But sometimes you have to do the responsible thing, and sometimes the responsible thing isn't the easy thing or the nicest thing.)
posted by sciatrix at 1:03 PM on October 2, 2015 [23 favorites]
I have a pretty good idea of what managing a dog with severe issues as they're describing entails, and in my opinion this is the sort of dog that you either look after, personally, taking on full responsibility for the dog and your own safety... or you euthanize the dog and give him a good death, surrounded by people who love him. That kind of constant worry and maintaining a household that won't put anyone in danger is just not something that it's acceptable to shunt onto anyone else. And like I said, it's absolutely not anything compatible with children, let alone a business where people are coming through. That's not fair to anyone. If I was in that situation--assuming that my own, personal, totally beloved dog was in the situation he's describing--well, I'd ask that she be euthanized after my death. It would be sad, but not as sad as hearing that a human or another dog was disfigured or killed because she wasn't managed well enough.
(Thank goodness my dog doesn't have a bite history. Thank goodness she doesn't need that kind of care. But sometimes you have to do the responsible thing, and sometimes the responsible thing isn't the easy thing or the nicest thing.)
posted by sciatrix at 1:03 PM on October 2, 2015 [23 favorites]
But that's not what trusts are supposed to do. They're supposed to act with what the wishes actually were, not what they wish they would be.
Well, that depends whether those wishes are incorporated into the terms of the trust. As I've said above, the trustees' legal duty is to act to fulfil the aims of the trust. If those aims are "give as much money as possible to causes that help animals in perpetuity", making discretionary payments of hundreds of thousands to maybe help one dog may well actually be contrary to their duty. The trust is pretty big, but we're not talking Gulbenkian here; that money would make a genuine and noticeable difference to the yield of the investment portfolio over the next 50 years or so.
posted by howfar at 1:06 PM on October 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, that depends whether those wishes are incorporated into the terms of the trust. As I've said above, the trustees' legal duty is to act to fulfil the aims of the trust. If those aims are "give as much money as possible to causes that help animals in perpetuity", making discretionary payments of hundreds of thousands to maybe help one dog may well actually be contrary to their duty. The trust is pretty big, but we're not talking Gulbenkian here; that money would make a genuine and noticeable difference to the yield of the investment portfolio over the next 50 years or so.
posted by howfar at 1:06 PM on October 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
The legal obligation of the trustees is to act in accordance with the aims of the trust.
But isn't it obviously an aim of the trust to take care of animals that the guy cared about? Including the dog that trustee Julie Miller had already beem paying for at Simon's direction? If not, why name a caregiver and back-up caregivers? Why mention the dog at all? Vicious, expensive dogs are of no value to an estate. It stands to reason that since his trustee had been cutting checks for the dog, Simon may have expected that to be "taken care of," and it was an oversight that it wasn't properly written up.
posted by zennie at 1:09 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
But isn't it obviously an aim of the trust to take care of animals that the guy cared about? Including the dog that trustee Julie Miller had already beem paying for at Simon's direction? If not, why name a caregiver and back-up caregivers? Why mention the dog at all? Vicious, expensive dogs are of no value to an estate. It stands to reason that since his trustee had been cutting checks for the dog, Simon may have expected that to be "taken care of," and it was an oversight that it wasn't properly written up.
posted by zennie at 1:09 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm seriously side-eyeing anyone who places a dog with a serious bite history (including goddamn maulings, but assuming at least that this is a dog with a Level 5 bite history) who needs the kind of ongoing management this one apparently does in a household with children.
You're totally right - but my bet is that the trainer was totally fine with handling the training of this dog at the place which had a backyard complex specially designed for the dog not to hurt anyone, and trusted when his billionaire dying friend asked him to take care of the dog and that he'd be taken care of, that he'd be able to use that facility or similar type facilities. He may not have envisioned the dog living with his kids - but it's really hard to violate your dying friend's wishes. There's something deep in us, culturally, that makes even strange or hard results sacrosanct.
I mean, really in my opinion this kind of 'it's time to broadly rehabilitate dogs that maul people' is a well-intentioned but ultimately terrible plan...but it seems like this was his Thing, down to creating foundations for it. (I also can't help wondering how many people he had to pay off. I've heard of dogs having to be euthanized for much less serious bites than maiming.)
posted by corb at 1:17 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
You're totally right - but my bet is that the trainer was totally fine with handling the training of this dog at the place which had a backyard complex specially designed for the dog not to hurt anyone, and trusted when his billionaire dying friend asked him to take care of the dog and that he'd be taken care of, that he'd be able to use that facility or similar type facilities. He may not have envisioned the dog living with his kids - but it's really hard to violate your dying friend's wishes. There's something deep in us, culturally, that makes even strange or hard results sacrosanct.
I mean, really in my opinion this kind of 'it's time to broadly rehabilitate dogs that maul people' is a well-intentioned but ultimately terrible plan...but it seems like this was his Thing, down to creating foundations for it. (I also can't help wondering how many people he had to pay off. I've heard of dogs having to be euthanized for much less serious bites than maiming.)
posted by corb at 1:17 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's a language that people use. Why wouldn't you be able to say anything you damn well please in it?
i think the comment that upset you is a play on the idea that "catch phrases" are culturally reified to the point where they are not translated. so it's not an implicit criticsm of hebrew - the same comment could be made whatever non-english language the work was described as (and so i don't think it's a criticism at all; just a weak joke).
posted by andrewcooke at 1:19 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
i think the comment that upset you is a play on the idea that "catch phrases" are culturally reified to the point where they are not translated. so it's not an implicit criticsm of hebrew - the same comment could be made whatever non-english language the work was described as (and so i don't think it's a criticism at all; just a weak joke).
posted by andrewcooke at 1:19 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
But isn't it obviously an aim of the trust to take care of animals that the guy cared about?
Legally speaking it's not obvious. There are people and organisations saying "he would definitely have wanted me/us to have $x", and maybe that's true. But the aim of the trust is not to "do what he he would have wanted". The aim of an express trust is to do what the deed creating the trust says it must do. An express trust is a specific legal instrument, not a seance with a chequebook.
posted by howfar at 1:25 PM on October 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Legally speaking it's not obvious. There are people and organisations saying "he would definitely have wanted me/us to have $x", and maybe that's true. But the aim of the trust is not to "do what he he would have wanted". The aim of an express trust is to do what the deed creating the trust says it must do. An express trust is a specific legal instrument, not a seance with a chequebook.
posted by howfar at 1:25 PM on October 2, 2015 [6 favorites]
Right, and according to Hollywood Reporter article, this isn't in the trust:
The trouble is that the Kilmers got the dog but not the funds they say Simon verbally had promised them to maintain Columbo's estimated $140,000 annual medical and therapeutic care regimen.
and
Several prominent nonprofits, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which had grown to rely on the producer's largesse while he was alive, say they have gone unexpectedly without his support since his passing, despite his verbal assurances to them that his trust would provide for them.
posted by Roger Dodger at 1:30 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
The trouble is that the Kilmers got the dog but not the funds they say Simon verbally had promised them to maintain Columbo's estimated $140,000 annual medical and therapeutic care regimen.
and
Several prominent nonprofits, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which had grown to rely on the producer's largesse while he was alive, say they have gone unexpectedly without his support since his passing, despite his verbal assurances to them that his trust would provide for them.
posted by Roger Dodger at 1:30 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
If the aims of the trust do not include money for dog acupuncture then they have a duty not to spend money on it.
If a trust was established for a special-needs child, then nobody would question whether "maintenance and support" included things that you were spending money on at the time you died, as long as the funds existed to do so. The trustee's released statement complained of the requests being "frivolous". Virtually everything rich people buy is frivolous by my standards.
Now, if the trust really didn't include any provision for the dog's care at all--odd that this would be their second line of defense--then they should never have been paying a dime in the first place. There's basically no way to read their statements and get out of it that they're being reasonable and responsible, unless Simon actually requested that the dog receive a lower standard of care after his death than during his life. Which seems improbable. The trustee's attitude, the PR guy, especially the whole "see they threatened to drag the media into it" thing... when the author has to point out that, no, this story came up all on its own? I don't know. My gut says something's wrong, there.
I think, Roger Dodger, that they're talking about verbal assurances because none of them have any access to see what actually got written down. The trustees are just reporting that they don't think they have these obligations, but their reasons for that are all over the place and inconsistent, so we have that, and then we have people saying they were under the impression that they WERE going to be covered by what got written down, but from my reading of this, they can't find that out unless they sue. Which is expensive.
posted by Sequence at 1:41 PM on October 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
If a trust was established for a special-needs child, then nobody would question whether "maintenance and support" included things that you were spending money on at the time you died, as long as the funds existed to do so. The trustee's released statement complained of the requests being "frivolous". Virtually everything rich people buy is frivolous by my standards.
Now, if the trust really didn't include any provision for the dog's care at all--odd that this would be their second line of defense--then they should never have been paying a dime in the first place. There's basically no way to read their statements and get out of it that they're being reasonable and responsible, unless Simon actually requested that the dog receive a lower standard of care after his death than during his life. Which seems improbable. The trustee's attitude, the PR guy, especially the whole "see they threatened to drag the media into it" thing... when the author has to point out that, no, this story came up all on its own? I don't know. My gut says something's wrong, there.
I think, Roger Dodger, that they're talking about verbal assurances because none of them have any access to see what actually got written down. The trustees are just reporting that they don't think they have these obligations, but their reasons for that are all over the place and inconsistent, so we have that, and then we have people saying they were under the impression that they WERE going to be covered by what got written down, but from my reading of this, they can't find that out unless they sue. Which is expensive.
posted by Sequence at 1:41 PM on October 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
As to the current allegations, Miller opted to have top crisis PR specialist Matthew Hiltzik send THR a statement, which notes that Simon "carefully planned every detail of his trust and worked with an independent philanthropic adviser to maximize the impact his estate had on charitable causes that Sam cared about." The statement also says Miller "allocated reasonable resources for Columbo's care within the limitations allowed by the trust and the law. However, these generous contributions were met with endless frivolous complaints by the trainer that these funds were insufficient." In a subsequent conversation, Hiltzik and Sorrell insisted that there were no financial provisions for the dog's care in the trust documents, which they declined to make available for review.
So nobody knows what's in the trust except the executor and the executor's lawyer and they're changing their story / not willing to be transparent. That seems pretty shitty. As does insisting the dog go to some place not equipped to deal with big, aggressive dogs.
posted by Squeak Attack at 1:56 PM on October 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
So nobody knows what's in the trust except the executor and the executor's lawyer and they're changing their story / not willing to be transparent. That seems pretty shitty. As does insisting the dog go to some place not equipped to deal with big, aggressive dogs.
posted by Squeak Attack at 1:56 PM on October 2, 2015 [5 favorites]
Hollywood Reporter doesn't know what is or isn't in the trust.
An express trust is a specific legal instrument, not a seance with a chequebook.
I haven't suddenly developed clairvoyance or a law degree, but neither is necessary here. I understand that legal documents are legal documents, but legal documents can contain errors and omissions, and can need modifications. Clearly there is some leeway, as the trust is paying for a year of "reduced cost" care. The whole thing with calling the dog's expenses "ludicrous" is itself ludicrous, when they knew about the expenses from the beginning.
posted by zennie at 1:58 PM on October 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
An express trust is a specific legal instrument, not a seance with a chequebook.
I haven't suddenly developed clairvoyance or a law degree, but neither is necessary here. I understand that legal documents are legal documents, but legal documents can contain errors and omissions, and can need modifications. Clearly there is some leeway, as the trust is paying for a year of "reduced cost" care. The whole thing with calling the dog's expenses "ludicrous" is itself ludicrous, when they knew about the expenses from the beginning.
posted by zennie at 1:58 PM on October 2, 2015 [3 favorites]
I would not be surprised if this is a case of someone who's never run a thing, in this case Simon's trust, letting the lawyers run the show.
If you ask your lawyer what to do, it is often their job to say "that's a risk, and you shouldn't do that because you don't have to."
If you're experienced and able to accept risk, you can say "I know, and we're doing it because it's the right thing."
posted by zippy at 2:02 PM on October 2, 2015
If you ask your lawyer what to do, it is often their job to say "that's a risk, and you shouldn't do that because you don't have to."
If you're experienced and able to accept risk, you can say "I know, and we're doing it because it's the right thing."
posted by zippy at 2:02 PM on October 2, 2015
zippy, are you talking about the executor, business manager Julie Miller of West L.A. firm Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt?
Because they claim in their web page that they handle family trusts.
posted by Squeak Attack at 2:05 PM on October 2, 2015
Because they claim in their web page that they handle family trusts.
posted by Squeak Attack at 2:05 PM on October 2, 2015
Squeak Attack: "So nobody knows what's in the trust except the executor and the executor's lawyer and they're changing their story / not willing to be transparent. "
Is it typical for trust ?mandates?/?direction?/?vision statement? to not be public? Seems like there should be public oversight at least for the people named in the document otherwise how would they know if the trustees are doing their jobs?
posted by Mitheral at 2:12 PM on October 2, 2015
Is it typical for trust ?mandates?/?direction?/?vision statement? to not be public? Seems like there should be public oversight at least for the people named in the document otherwise how would they know if the trustees are doing their jobs?
posted by Mitheral at 2:12 PM on October 2, 2015
The statement also says Miller "allocated reasonable resources for Columbo's care within the limitations allowed by the trust and the law. However, these generous contributions were met with endless frivolous complaints by the trainer that these funds were insufficient." In a subsequent conversation, Hiltzik and Sorrell insisted that there were no financial provisions for the dog's care in the trust documents, which they declined to make available for review.
I don't think they're necessarily changing their position (e.g. if there are general provisions for caring for animals) and I don't know anything about the law of equity in California, so I can't even assess how credible that idea is.
I just don't see how we can tell, based on the information we have available, whether the trustees are acting with appropriate diligence in their roles. It's perfectly possible that they're not, but unless they're actually misappropriating funds, they don't really have anything to gain from refusing to make these payments. So it's hard to have much of a position on it, as far as I can see.
posted by howfar at 2:27 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think they're necessarily changing their position (e.g. if there are general provisions for caring for animals) and I don't know anything about the law of equity in California, so I can't even assess how credible that idea is.
I just don't see how we can tell, based on the information we have available, whether the trustees are acting with appropriate diligence in their roles. It's perfectly possible that they're not, but unless they're actually misappropriating funds, they don't really have anything to gain from refusing to make these payments. So it's hard to have much of a position on it, as far as I can see.
posted by howfar at 2:27 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was not aware that "Yo, Man!" and "Bart!" were Hebrew expressions, but who am I to argue with the experts at Sotheby's.
Rabbis have long concluded that Bart Simpsons shorts were kashrut.
posted by dr_dank at 4:35 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Rabbis have long concluded that Bart Simpsons shorts were kashrut.
posted by dr_dank at 4:35 PM on October 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
The trouble is that the Kilmers got the dog but not the funds they say Simon verbally had promised them
There are no verbal promises in estates. This person is, and should be, SOL. If this Simon fella wanted an obscene amount of money to be directed to a sick dog, he could've done so.
posted by jpe at 5:42 PM on October 2, 2015
There are no verbal promises in estates. This person is, and should be, SOL. If this Simon fella wanted an obscene amount of money to be directed to a sick dog, he could've done so.
posted by jpe at 5:42 PM on October 2, 2015
Is it typical for trust ?mandates?/?direction?/?vision statement? to not be public?
It's extremely common for trusts not to be public in states that charge a shit-ton for probate court estate.
Most states have adopted the Uniform Trust Act, where a beneficiary has the right to the trust, but an animal may not be a beneficiary with legal rights.
posted by jpe at 5:47 PM on October 2, 2015
It's extremely common for trusts not to be public in states that charge a shit-ton for probate court estate.
Most states have adopted the Uniform Trust Act, where a beneficiary has the right to the trust, but an animal may not be a beneficiary with legal rights.
posted by jpe at 5:47 PM on October 2, 2015
zippy, are you talking about the executor, business manager Julie Miller of West L.A. firm Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt?
Because they claim in their web page that they handle family trusts.
Welp, I was wrong. I'd guessed his business partner was an accountant type and not someone with more experience.
posted by zippy at 7:56 PM on October 2, 2015
Because they claim in their web page that they handle family trusts.
Welp, I was wrong. I'd guessed his business partner was an accountant type and not someone with more experience.
posted by zippy at 7:56 PM on October 2, 2015
I don't know law, or the case law here, but it seems CA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 1622-1624 applies:
1622 All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.
and
1624(a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they ...are in writing. (5) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed during the lifetime of the promisor.
So, there was (it's claimed, at I would guess some risk to the trustee) no mention in the trust, and also no contract under civil law that, unwritten, could outlast Simon.
Which sucks, because it seems obvious Simon would not have wanted his dog euthanized.
posted by zippy at 11:41 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
SECTION 1622-1624 applies:
1622 All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.
and
1624(a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they ...are in writing. (5) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed during the lifetime of the promisor.
So, there was (it's claimed, at I would guess some risk to the trustee) no mention in the trust, and also no contract under civil law that, unwritten, could outlast Simon.
Which sucks, because it seems obvious Simon would not have wanted his dog euthanized.
posted by zippy at 11:41 PM on October 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
He named a successor owner. If they can't or don't want to pay for the dog, there's a very simple fix: they resign and dog goes to successor.
posted by jpe at 4:47 AM on October 3, 2015
posted by jpe at 4:47 AM on October 3, 2015
If this Simon fella wanted an obscene amount of money to be directed to a sick dog, he could've done so.
But he may have. He seems to have indicated to them that he was going to. I don't think they're just saying "he promised me money", they're saying they were given the impression that the formal planning was going to be done to safeguard these things. It's just that they have no way of examining the full language to have any idea if it was or wasn't, right now. I don't think these people are actually such idiots that they'd believe that even though the trust was set up to explicitly NOT to pay these expenses that they should get them paid anyway. I'm operating under the good-faith assumption that they know this. They have a lawyer. The trustee won't give them a straight answer, won't allow them to actually see the full trust, gives them a redacted exerpt, it's practically a dare. They have to expend significant funds on lawyers just to actually get enough of the document to litigate. Which could easily, at this level, require more money spent than they'd actually be entitled to receive.
I'm not saying I know that it says it's all in there. I'm just saying that handling it this way if it was very clearly NOT there is fishy, and that fishiness makes me suspect that there's at least something there that Simon would have thought was supposed to cover this. Also, the plain absurdity that someone this obsessed with animals wouldn't include their companion animals in their estate planning.
posted by Sequence at 8:03 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
But he may have. He seems to have indicated to them that he was going to. I don't think they're just saying "he promised me money", they're saying they were given the impression that the formal planning was going to be done to safeguard these things. It's just that they have no way of examining the full language to have any idea if it was or wasn't, right now. I don't think these people are actually such idiots that they'd believe that even though the trust was set up to explicitly NOT to pay these expenses that they should get them paid anyway. I'm operating under the good-faith assumption that they know this. They have a lawyer. The trustee won't give them a straight answer, won't allow them to actually see the full trust, gives them a redacted exerpt, it's practically a dare. They have to expend significant funds on lawyers just to actually get enough of the document to litigate. Which could easily, at this level, require more money spent than they'd actually be entitled to receive.
I'm not saying I know that it says it's all in there. I'm just saying that handling it this way if it was very clearly NOT there is fishy, and that fishiness makes me suspect that there's at least something there that Simon would have thought was supposed to cover this. Also, the plain absurdity that someone this obsessed with animals wouldn't include their companion animals in their estate planning.
posted by Sequence at 8:03 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
i think the comment that upset you is a play on the idea that "catch phrases" are culturally reified to the point where they are not translated
No, I was just noting that the writing is in the Latin alphabet, and the words are plainly English. There's no Hebrew (in the sense of the script or the language) on the yarmulke at all.
posted by jedicus at 8:14 AM on October 3, 2015
No, I was just noting that the writing is in the Latin alphabet, and the words are plainly English. There's no Hebrew (in the sense of the script or the language) on the yarmulke at all.
posted by jedicus at 8:14 AM on October 3, 2015
After thinking about this more, something occurred to me - so this guy is obsessed with animals. Who's he going to pick to help him oversee his estate? Someone who also cares about animals. Possibly even a "true believer". And I can easily see a true believer being like "this is only one dog, that money could save many more dogs, the guy was crazy and we had to pander to him to get the money, but now he is dead, and we don't give a fuck about his stupid violent dog."
posted by corb at 8:46 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:46 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is why we write things down.
posted by oceanjesse at 9:00 AM on October 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 9:00 AM on October 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
To me the most likely explanation for all this is "rich guy is used to the world being organised according to how he wants it and assumes that this will just carry on after he dies, and so doesn't put in place appropriate instruments to ensure that happens."
If you were a crooked trustee surely you'd just pay out and shut this dog trainer up. The risk:benefit ratio for a trustee makes the cock-up explanation seem more likely than the conspiracy explanation. But there are plenty of dumb crooks in the world, so who knows?
posted by howfar at 10:19 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you were a crooked trustee surely you'd just pay out and shut this dog trainer up. The risk:benefit ratio for a trustee makes the cock-up explanation seem more likely than the conspiracy explanation. But there are plenty of dumb crooks in the world, so who knows?
posted by howfar at 10:19 AM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think these people are actually such idiots that they'd believe that even though the trust was set up to explicitly NOT to pay these expenses that they should get them paid anyway. I'm operating under the good-faith assumption that they know this.
Having worked at an institutional trustee, I have the opposite presumption. I'm assuming that they'll discharge their fiduciary duties so as to minimize their own liability.
posted by jpe at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2015
Having worked at an institutional trustee, I have the opposite presumption. I'm assuming that they'll discharge their fiduciary duties so as to minimize their own liability.
posted by jpe at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2015
I am having a hard time imagining what kind of training or therapy would require 5 hours a day for the rest of the dog's life. I mean, I suppose I can imagine a dog that is so psychologically damaged that no actual rehabilitation is possible and just needs to be intensively managed pretty much 'round the clock. But at that point it seems to be like it should be handled like a sick patient whose disease can't be cured--you bring in skilled nursing staff (in this case, assistant handler) to provide round-the-clock care rather than having a doctor (top-shelf trainer-to-stars) spend 5 hours a day "treating" a patient that stands no chance of actually being cured.
posted by drlith at 11:42 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by drlith at 11:42 AM on October 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am having a hard time imagining what kind of training or therapy would require 5 hours a day for the rest of the dog's life.
I think it's five to seven hours a week.
"I was out there at his house five to seven days a week for a couple of hours at a time for several years."
posted by zippy at 12:15 PM on October 3, 2015
I think it's five to seven hours a week.
"I was out there at his house five to seven days a week for a couple of hours at a time for several years."
posted by zippy at 12:15 PM on October 3, 2015
He named a successor owner. If they can't or don't want to pay for the dog, there's a very simple fix: they resign and dog goes to successor.
The Kilmers, who are the only ones saying what Simon's wishes were for the dog, as the trustee is not saying anything, claim the named successor is the Sam Simon Foundation.
The Sam Simon Foundation and the Kilmers have both said said the Foundation cannot handle big, aggressive dogs. The Foundation's statement was in 2007, so perhaps they now have the capability, but the chief trainer then is still the chief trainer at the foundation, so perhaps large, aggressive dogs are just outside of their mission (and budget).
'... Miller told them that the backup person was an instructor who resides at the Sam Simon Foundation, a facility that Alison says lacks the ability to handle big, aggressive breeds. "They will put him in a cage," she says. In a 2007 60 Minutes segment on Simon's philanthropy, Barb Velasquez, the facility's chief trainer, conceded that it can't handle dogs that are too big or aggressive: "The hardest part of all this is looking at a dog that you know is not at all suitable for our program."'
posted by zippy at 5:06 PM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Kilmers, who are the only ones saying what Simon's wishes were for the dog, as the trustee is not saying anything, claim the named successor is the Sam Simon Foundation.
The Sam Simon Foundation and the Kilmers have both said said the Foundation cannot handle big, aggressive dogs. The Foundation's statement was in 2007, so perhaps they now have the capability, but the chief trainer then is still the chief trainer at the foundation, so perhaps large, aggressive dogs are just outside of their mission (and budget).
'... Miller told them that the backup person was an instructor who resides at the Sam Simon Foundation, a facility that Alison says lacks the ability to handle big, aggressive breeds. "They will put him in a cage," she says. In a 2007 60 Minutes segment on Simon's philanthropy, Barb Velasquez, the facility's chief trainer, conceded that it can't handle dogs that are too big or aggressive: "The hardest part of all this is looking at a dog that you know is not at all suitable for our program."'
posted by zippy at 5:06 PM on October 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think it's five to seven hours a week.
Ok, then it's a little crazy to price that out at $7,500/month.
posted by drlith at 5:11 PM on October 3, 2015
Ok, then it's a little crazy to price that out at $7,500/month.
posted by drlith at 5:11 PM on October 3, 2015
« Older Carlsbad's Frank Kindel: Flying paper boy of the... | peer-to-peer Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by entropone at 12:15 PM on October 2, 2015 [12 favorites]