As reported in the New York Times, the trustees who control the disputed estate of hotel baroness Leona Helmsley (seen at left) are beginning to slice up the pie. In a mission statement attached to her will four years before her death, the so-called "Queen of Mean" specified that the bulk of her $5 billion fortune should quite literally go to the dogs. Twelve million dollars were specifically earmarked for Trouble, her own Maltese. The rest was to be disbursed to canine causes "and such other charitable activities as the trustees shall determine." But now, to the intense annoyance of animal advocates across the nation, the dogs are getting the short end of the stick.

"The first $136 million from the hotelier Leona Helmsley's disputed multibillion-dollar estate has been distributed, trustees announced on Tuesday," writes Sam Roberts of the Times, "but the bulk went to medical centers instead of dogs. Only $1 million of the estate, valued at about $5 billion, was donated to the care of dogs, which Mrs. Helmsley had designated as her primary beneficiary. 'This is a trifling and embarrassingly small amount,' said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States."

The news prompted some amusing responses on the Web. Over at Gothamist, blogger Jen Chung led with a speculation: "Wherever Leona Helmsley is now, we imagine she's throwing a fit." Mr Mel gave the trustees a round of applause: "She was incompetent, no animal charity deserves that kind of money. I'm surprised PETA hasn't gotten involved. [J]ust as well, because they would use the money for sloths, raccoons, baboons, and all the other ugly species." The appropriately named felixthecat2 saw another case of greed, with NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in on the game: "Cuomo was behind this, all these greedy trustees and their friends wanted their hands on this money and now they took it away from the dogs."

There was a similar division of opinion over at Twitter. As @cushiebutter saw it, the money-grubbing grandchildren were robbing the pups of their rightful inheritance: "Leona Helmsley's grandchildren aren't entitled to anything. They should have never gotten that money. Some people!" Another tweeter, @Gabriel Cheong, seemed to think little of the billionaire's estate planning: "I'm troubled that a Will and Trust meant absolutely nothing to Leona Helmsley." Still a third, @TheBishopTutu, took a more practical approach: "I want some of the money that Leona Helmsley left to her dogs."

Meanwhile, a related Propeller post also inspired some piquant commentary. One member, ranchhasawhiteass, laid down the law for his entire menagerie: "Well, I plan on living longer than my dogs. But if they don't mind real good, they're outta the will. I'd hate to play favorites, but the donkey will probably get to live on the property for the rest of her life. The heifer? That will be according how broke and hungry I get." But not2needy played the kibble card: "I don't think I agree with that decision. If she wanted her estate to go to the animals, her wishes should have been honored! That said, it's sad that she would overlook so many other decent charities, but it was her money!"

One way or another, the enormous fortune will go to charity. But the dispute does raise an interesting question: how would Leona Helmsley have spent the money if she were still alive? Perhaps we can glean an answer from her 1987 trial, when she and her husband Harry were slapped with 235 counts of tax evasion. Among the precious items the husband and wife claimed as business expenses: a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $210,000 mahogany card table, and $500,000 worth of jade trinkets, all for their private residence in Greenwich, CT. Dig deeper, and you'll probably find a solid-gold, diamond-encrusted milkbone for Trouble.