Estate planning for pets – Part 1
- Raising the issue of estate planning for pets, explaining why a bequest cannot be left to a pet, and outlining limitations to a basic estate plan of leaving your pet in the hands of a caregiver along with a financial bequest to cover the pet’s expenses.
Have you included your pet in your estate planning?
Some are shaking their heads in disbelief that a pet could be an estate planning consideration.
For others, their pet is the most important thing in their life. Expense is no consideration when it comes to their pet’s quality of life, extending to expensive food and treats, toys, proactive veterinary care and bringing in caregivers if their pet would otherwise be left alone.
For those, ensuring that their pet continues to enjoy the same standard of living if they die is critically important.
I’m more on the shaking my head end of that spectrum.
I grew up on a farm. Our dogs and cats never came inside the house, let alone seeing the inside of a veterinary clinic.
But I get it.
I remember overwhelming feelings of love for those outside dogs when I was a child.
Harsh lessons must have led to a self-protective crust. For example, I recall feelings of devastation when my first dog developed a taste for chickens and had to be put down to save the flock.
We have two little Morkies. I would want them properly cared for if something happened to my wife and me, but that won’t require anything special of “estate planning”. Our adult kids, who the dogs technically belong to anyway, would simply learn to feed and water them!
My parents-in-law are at the other end of the spectrum with their little dog – also a Morkie – named Lola.
They positively dote on that bundle of yappy fur.
She’s got several coats and sweaters, if you can imagine. And they worry about her paws when it’s hot or cold outside.
They take Lola for regular walks and pick her up when she seems to get tired. And tolerate Lola wandering endlessly finding perfect spots to leave little bits of pee.
Aside from high end kibble, they keep some chicken – actual chicken meat – in the fridge for treats!
They wouldn’t go on a trip if they couldn’t take Lola with them. And they wouldn’t put her through the trauma of a flight in the “pet hold” of a plane.
They’ve spent thousands of dollars on her teeth alone. Tens of thousands on ACL (knee) repairs – traveling to Vancouver for the best veterinary surgeon!
We would absolutely take Lola in if something happened to my wife’s mom and dad. But can we be counted on to give her the same standard of living she has become accustomed to?
My parents-in-law have joked that their estate will go to Lola.
That’s not possible under our law.
A pet, however beloved, cannot receive a bequest in a will any more than a hammer can.
They can choose who to leave Lola to (a “caregiver”), just like they can choose who to leave their hammer to.
And they can leave the caregiver as much money as they like with the intention that it be used to cover the expense of caring for Lola (a “pet fund”).
But doing so has limitations.
One arises if the standard of living Lola has enjoyed is higher than the very reasonable, but lower, standard the caregiver is used to providing to their own pets.
Would the caregiver increase their level of care to that which Lola is accustomed?
The second has to do with the glaring conflict of interest arising from the caregiver getting a lump sum of money to cover Lola’s expenses.
Unless they’re incredibly wealthy such that the pet fund is meaningless to them, they will have competing needs for that money.
Will Lola win out to the caregiver’s competing financial wants and needs?
There’s a third limitation: Something could happen to the caregiver that prevents them from being able (or wanting) to follow through. What now? The pet fund has gone to them and nobody else is lined up to take over the job.
Tune in next week to learn about how a “trust” set up in your will can address some of these limitations.
