Apparently a last will and testament isn't. By that I mean, it seems that there is always someone who steps forward to intervene, get involved and try and change requests and bequests. Take Leonora Helmsley's dog Trouble for example. Ms. Helmsley wanted her pooch to inherit but her estranged family and the legal system thought otherwise.

Why all this comes to mind is that Trouble has passed away at the age of 12.

I think that Ms. Helmsley's wishes should have been respected a I would have thought NOW would be the time for everyone to come out of the woodwork and fight about her money.

As recently as last May, Brendan Pierson wrote in the New York Law Journal " that a bid  by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society, and other animal welfare groups to ensure that organizations that help dogs receive funds from a charitable trust created by Leona Helmsley, the latereal estate billionaire was rejected.

Ms. Helmsley, who infamously left $12 million toher dog, Trouble, upon her death in 2007, said in a 2004 mission statement for the trust that she wanted it used for "1) purposes related to the provision or care of dogs and 2) such other charitable activities as the Trustees shall determine." But in February 2009, the Manhattan Surrogate's Court found that the mission statement did not place any legal restrictions on what donations could be made from the trust, which is reportedly estimated at $5 billion to $8 billion.

About six months later, the ASPCA and the Humane Society, along with Maddie's Fund, another pet rescue operation, filed a motion asking the court to vacate its earlier order and allow them to intervene. The groups hoped to convince the court that the mission statement gave the trust an obligation to give "special emphasis" to charities that help dogs.They said they were filing the motion not in their capacity as individualcharities, but as representatives of a class of such charities."

And so it went ...

Now it's going to be interesting to see what happens.