It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bank goes to court to save cat from being euthanized

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
It seems someone left instructions in their will to have their pet put down once they died. But Fifth Third Bank refused to do it.




For months, Boots, an 11-year-old cat from a suburb of Chicago, had been on "kitty death row." Her owner died last December, and a 20-year-old will stipulated any cats the woman owned at the time of her death be euthanized. But trust officers at Fifth Third Bank in charge of, um, executing the will, couldn't bring themselves to carry out the request. So they went to court. The bank asked a judge to set aside the provision, arguing that killing Boots "would violate public policy to euthanize a healthy housecat where an appropriate shelter has been identified." The judge agreed, and the bank was able to place her at a no-kill shelter.


Should the bank be able to overrule the instructions set out in the will?




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Pets cannot speak for themselves, yes, the bank did the right thing, so did the judge, thanks heavens for some sense in this world.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


While I would never go beyond someones written will,
I find it highly inappropriate to put a healthy animal to death.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Uh yeah, when the instruction is that idiotic I'd say to go ahead and override it. There is no need for a healthy house pet to die just because it's owner did. So you can put any immorality in a will?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
It seems someone left instructions in their will to have their pet put down once they died. But Fifth Third Bank refused to do it.




For months, Boots, an 11-year-old cat from a suburb of Chicago, had been on "kitty death row." Her owner died last December, and a 20-year-old will stipulated any cats the woman owned at the time of her death be euthanized. But trust officers at Fifth Third Bank in charge of, um, executing the will, couldn't bring themselves to carry out the request. So they went to court. The bank asked a judge to set aside the provision, arguing that killing Boots "would violate public policy to euthanize a healthy housecat where an appropriate shelter has been identified." The judge agreed, and the bank was able to place her at a no-kill shelter.


Should the bank be able to overrule the instructions set out in the will?


Absolutely, the bank are well within their rights to challenge the legality and indeed the morality of such a stipulation,had it been a condition of the will that any surviving relatives be euthanised would the bank as the wills executors have a duty to comply then? Of course not so why should any living healthy creature be subjected to the irrational and indeed immoral whims of anyone?
I just hope that the cat secures a loving and caring home,she deserves it.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Fifth-Third used to be one of the largest providers of pet insurance in America (Still is? Not sure..) but, a curious angle pops up in my mind. Did they have to pay out anything on the cat's death?

I'm not that familiar with pet insurance so I couldn't say.

Anyone?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
While i would not want to see an animal die for no reason didnt the bank make an agreement to carry out any legal instructions when that person died? They took the persons money and now they want to back out of the agreement.

Im glad the cats alive but im not sure its right to break their agreement like that without some kind of penalty.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Fifth-Third used to be one of the largest providers of pet insurance in America (Still is? Not sure..) but, a curious angle pops up in my mind. Did they have to pay out anything on the cat's death?

I'm not that familiar with pet insurance so I couldn't say.

Anyone?


I think the greater concern was of public perception. Had they honored the will and this got leaked to the media it would be a public relations disaster. By challenging the mandate and putting it in the hands of a judge, regardless of what that judge ruled, the bank would of had a far better spin on the outcome than had they just honored the will. The judge ruled in favor of the cat so this was a win-win for both the cat and the bank.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I hate when you see Wills being overturned by greedy children, or partners that the deceased did not want to leave things to. In this case though it was the right decision.

How stupid of this person to say that in their Will. What if the cat had been only a year or so old when they died? Depriving a healthy animal of life because you are no longer there to take care of it is selfish and cruel. Boots may have another ten years yet, ten years of being a companion to someone else.

Yay for Boots! and WOW @ a bank for caring



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Fifth-Third used to be one of the largest providers of pet insurance in America (Still is? Not sure..) but, a curious angle pops up in my mind. Did they have to pay out anything on the cat's death?

I'm not that familiar with pet insurance so I couldn't say.

Anyone?


I'm not sure of the specifric terms of any insurance issued by Fifty-Third,but I have just looked thru our cat insurance policy and one stipulation is that in the event of death any payout is dependant upon the death being either due to accident,illness not declared at the time that the policy was taken out, or by malicious intent by a third party,death of the animal by euthenasia where the quality of life of the animal is deemed by a veterinary professional to be untenable.

It would appear that the euthenisation of a healthy animal would negate any insurance payout,I imagine that is a condition common to most pet insurance policies? plus I don't know about the US but here in the UK a veterinarian would refuse to euthenise a healthy cat in those circumstances.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
AARRRGGGHHHHH THIS MAKES ME SOOO ANGRY!!!

Their willing to turf people out on the streets, spend our money, chuck out single parents and their kids onto the streets with no where to go, loose all our investments, Yet they save a cat??? how about...... Keep the mother and children you threw out on the streets in a house? How about not playing stupid games with our money? How about with that money you used to go to court with and the time and resources to fix what the banks have broken......Some people lives!


To me it's just pulling at heart strings as a plea to NOT make the Banks look so evil..

They will save a cat, yet happily give millions of pounds in bonuses for their ridiculous lifestyle.

Is this really what Banks should be concentrating on at this point in time?

#s.
edit on 12-4-2012 by definity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
so happy for the cat,if they win.if you could fedex to me i would gladly house him.however this is just a transparent attempt to garner sympathy from the public by a bank.
the legal costs will be equal to eviction for a few families i would imagine.it would be ironic if one of those familys had to have their cat put to sleep because there is no room for it in the station wagon that is their new home.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
.... yes, the bank did the right thing, ...


Wow, these are some words you never hear in the same sentence....EVER

Its a BANK, there must be something else going on, Banks NEVER do anything that they wont profit on



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
First time I ever agreed with a bank and being a cat person I think they made the right choice. Killing a healthy animal does not seem right even if it was a dieing last request.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Why not? This is basically the humane thing to do, the cat is healthy there is no reason to euthanize healthy pets that can find new homes and no kill shelters. I think this has changed my mind about some banks I was going to go to a credit union, but I may just bank with fifth third now, they have shown that they have good ethics. A bank with a heart. And what kind of monsters would put that in their will anyway? If they weren't already dead, well I'll tell you what they'd get a punch in the face from me: An animal lover and especially a cat lover. It was plain sick that they put that in their will!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
did that woman have any family? Im glad the cat is ok.

Also why was my post deleted for an extreme terms of service, there were no swear words, look at the stars, poeple liked it. wow this website is run by the SS or something. ruh roh warning number 2. I could care less.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


No. It was a mean stipulation, and I don't agree with it, but the cat is still considered property. What if the bank decided the money wasn't distributed fairly, and they moved to give more of it to someone else? The woman had the right while she was alive to put the cat down, why doesn't she have the right when she is dead?

She obviously picked the wrong bank to execute her will.
WOW, that was an accident, but totally funny, you know it is!



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I dont know to much about wills but isnt a will like a contract? would this be like a breach of contract if the bank didnt carry out instructions?

Again i stress that im glad the cat is ok



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join