## Facts

- Stewart died in 1978 leaving a will.
- The will named Stewart’s housekeeper, Grace Gonzales, as a legatee.
- The will directed that the residue of Stewart’s estate be placed in a “trust” to care for Stewart’s three cats.
- The will also made a charitable gift to Wellesley College and included directions affecting distribution if the charitable amount exceeded $15,000.
- At the time, Pennsylvania law did not recognize animals as trust beneficiaries capable of enforcing a private trust, so the purported trust for the cats could not be given legal effect as written.
- After Stewart’s death, Stewart’s accountant arranged for Gonzales to care for the cats and sought to have Gonzales receive $5,000 from the residuary estate for that purpose.
- Wellesley College agreed to the $5,000 payment on the condition that it would receive any funds remaining after the death of the last cat.
- The Orphans’ Court was asked to consider the requested arrangement for disposition of the residuary estate given the invalidity of the attempted pet trust.

## Issues

1. When a will attempts to create a private testamentary trust naming cats as beneficiaries, may the Orphans’ Court approve an arrangement that sets aside a limited sum to pay a human caretaker for the cats’ care and directs any remaining funds to a valid charitable beneficiary?

## Decision

- The court concluded the will’s attempted trust for the cats was not legally enforceable because the cats could not be trust beneficiaries.
- The court approved payment of $5,000 from the residuary estate to Gonzales to provide care for the cats.
- The court approved the arrangement that, after the death of the last cat, any funds remaining would be distributed to Wellesley College.

## Legal Principles

- A valid private trust generally requires ascertainable beneficiaries with legal capacity to enforce the trust; animals are not such beneficiaries.
- When a testamentary provision fails as an enforceable trust, the court may still give effect to the testator’s intent to the extent it can do so through lawful distributions and practical administration of the estate.
- A court supervising estate administration may approve a reasonable, limited payment to a human caretaker to carry out the decedent’s expressed wish that pets be cared for, while ensuring the balance passes to a legally valid beneficiary named in the will.

## Conclusion

In administering Stewart’s estate, the Orphans’ Court held that the will’s attempted residuary trust for the benefit of Stewart’s cats was unenforceable, but approved a $5,000 payment to the housekeeper who agreed to care for the cats and directed that any remaining funds be distributed to Wellesley College after the last cat’s death.


In re Stewart's Estate, 13 Pa. D. & C.3d 488 (1979)