We've been talking about family and inheritance laws (as the title may suggest). A Florida estate and trusts scholar wrote an article recently that asks if the law has some catching up to do with the way things really work. We surround ourselves with people we love, but they may not be related by blood or marriage -- so the law doesn't think of them as "proper" heirs.

Sometimes, the most loving and rewarding relationship a person has is with a pet. Both society and the law aren't quite sure how to deal with this. Think about Leona Helmsley. She was dubbed the Most Hated Woman in America. Why shouldn't she leave a good deal of her fortune to the one being on Earth that was always glad to see her?

The law does allow pets to inherit, but the scholar argues that the current ad hoc approach leaves much to be desired. The pet trust is gaining popularity, as we have noted in this blog, but pets are still seen as "other."

Other areas of the law need review, as well. Helmsley's will directed that Trouble be buried next to her when the dog died. The cemetery doesn't allow pets to be buried there, though.

Another legal hurdle that could easily be cleared: the money left over from a pet trust, what the law calls the "remainder." Helmsley's wish was that the remainder from Trouble's trust be folded into her charitable trusts. Normally, a gift to charity is tax deductible. Not so with pet trusts.

It's an interesting issue and one that we won't solve here. We just wonder how long it will take lawmakers and social norms to catch up with this broader definition of family -- the definition that doesn't discriminate on the basis of species.

Source: Washington University-St. Louis, "Pet inheritance: The trouble with Trouble's money," Jessica Martin, Aug. 4, 2011