Not quite sure why you used my post to reply with this?

What you have done is what I have done----Tassle can take care of them in the way which she feels will be best.

I have made no comment on the legality of the will in that situation----as I have no idea.

rune

Depends on the dog. If Spencer was still alive and both me and Ian went would be safer to have him pts as he has fear aggresion and would bite.
Bron wouldnt cope either but the others would be fine.
Mine will go to welshie rescue except Spence.

Personally i would NEVER write such a thing in my will but I'd just be interested to know where they stood on the subject, i'd also be interested in a lawyers view as they would know legal in and outs.

I already got that view, as I said, it is not legally enforceable.

I think it is quite common place now to have made arrangements in your will for your pets. Dave and I made our first will a number of years ago when we bought our first home and updated it when we got married last year, both times we were asked if we wanted to make any arrangements for pets.

I think it is extremely important that you should include in your will who you wish your pet to go to in event of your death. Of course that is something that should be discussed with that person but it saves any arguments later if there were two family members that wanted your dog but you had a preference of who the dog should go to.

Max is not mentioned in our wills because my family members know my wishes should both Dave and I go together and that is for Max to be pts. That is for the simple reason that we have no-one that we feel could take care of him. He knows my family well but neither of my sisters could take him as both are very busy with a young family and work and neither of my parents, who are both getting on in age, would be capable of looking after him long term. For his size he is quite elderly although he is in good health. Since we took him on he has always been very wary of people and other dogs, although this has improved. Add into the mix that he is a very large and powerful dog and he becomes even less desireable.

Of course I could just sign him over to a rescue but, from personal experience of how busy rescues are, I don't think Max would get a look in. I have been volunteering at a local rescue for over a year now and there are dogs that have been there since I started. These are friendly, well adjusted dogs and yet they are still there. There are too many dogs for too few homes sadly and only a certain amount will get rehomed. Max would not be so lucky I feel. He went from pillar to post as a youngster and he will not spend the rest of his days shut up in a kennel being passed over time and time again.

It is not a decision that I would have made if I owned a sociable dog who I felt would easily be rehomed but it is the right one for Max.

I find it interesting that the lady is happy to rehome the westie and not the dobe, I wonder if there is some other issue that she is concerned about that she has not mentioned.

No will (in England and Wales - I know nothing of the laws of anywhere else other than Spain) can eb legally enforced.

However, it is possible to contest a will or certain aspects of it and if you wanted to show that a dog is young, healthy and should have the benefit of a full and active life (of course it would be better if you can show there is someone to provide this) then those defending the will/the wishes of the deceased person would have a hard time convincing anyone (whether lawyers, vets or just executors tot eh will) that an animal should be PTS.

I too have made provisions for my dogs int eh event of my death. Once I die, the peopel who have agreed to take on my animals will become their legal owners and will care for them as I have so far. Should anything happen, an accident, or disease and it's kinder to PTS, then they will make that decision when the time comes.

I agree with SB - there's no way on earth I would force my family or friends to kill my dogs just because I was dead. It would be bad enough that they would be grieving for me (hopefully ) but to also have to then grieve for a lost pet just because of selfishness is outrageous.

no they would`nt, lawyers/Solicitor are like GP`S, they know a little (if at all) about all subjects, most specialize in one field and don't know the law on all things they will come across, they pass it on (or should) to someone who does in other departments.

Regardless of it being enforceable, putting it in a will voices your wishes, and its then down to who ever is a trustee to either go with them or not.

I have made my feeling very clear to my family, it sin my will as a reminder to them, that she is under no circumstances to be passed out of our immediate family, if that cant happen, she must be PTS..........OR....I will comt back to haunt them

I have been involved with several relatives who would have been only too happy to kill the dogs!

rune

I would rather be selfish, than see my girl end up in a living hell of rescue centres........

Not just 'sounds' it 'is' incredibly selfish, how the heck does she know the doberman will miss her If I was the executor of her will there's no way I would put a young, healthy, and well behaved dog, to sleep. Not without trying every possible way to re-home him - it's not without reason that the old adage "The law is an ass" came about.