Salvation Army tries to cut Greenpeace from donor's $260 million trust

[meegbear]

One of the dirtiest secrets nonprofit fundraisers may try to keep from donors is the extent to which planned giving officers and lawyers will fight over a deceased donor's estate.

Doris Margaret Di Stefano passed away in June 2005 at the age of 90. Her husband, H. Guy Di Stefano, died a little over a year later. The quiet couple had an estate of more than $260 million (mostly from UPS stock from Doris' dad) and no heirs.

Last fall, eight charities were notified that would each receive roughly $33 million:

* Direct Relief International
* Salvation Army
* Santa Barbara Hospice Foundation
* Santa Barbara Visiting Nurse Association
* American Humane Society
* Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust
* Greenpeace International Inc.
* World Wildlife Fund

But there was a catch. Technically, the legal entity "Greenpeace International Inc." does not exist anymore and the Western Terrority Salvation Army has gone to court in Seattle to challenge the Di Stefano trust.

According to the New York Times:
Greenpeace has several different nonprofit incarnations. Greenpeace International was created in 1978... and Greenpeace Fund was created in 1980. They shared the same central phone number and offices in Washington, D.C., and many employees. During an I.R.S. audit that affirmed the organization’s tax-exempt status, an auditor suggested that Greenpeace reduce the number of its units.

In response, it dissolved Greenpeace International in December 2005. That organization’s board named the Greenpeace Fund as its successor-in-interest.

The same Times article mentions "internal friction" at the Salvation Army stemming from the fact that the Western Territory filed its objection without telling national headquarters in Virginia. If the Salvation Army succeeds in cutting Greenpeace out of the will, each of the remaining seven charities would split the $33 million.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fdonttellthedonor.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F02%2Fsalvation-army-tries-to-cut-greenpeace.html

[Dora]

1. Wow. I knew Salvation Army was low, but this takes the cake.

Good read: A very interesting article that clearly outlines how craven assholes are attempting to steal money from the dead.

[elehhhhna]

2. A well-written will or trust would have a clause which CUTS OUT

any beneficiary who sues it. Period.

[xxqqqzme]

4. 'no contest' clause

is standard.......it was when I was prepping drafts of trusts anyway.

[elehhhhna]

6. thank you. My brain froze and I'd forgotten the term.

[mmonk]

3. It would seem to me that the Greenpeace Fund is entitled

to receive the funds allocated to Greenpeace by the deceased because it is the successor-in-interest. Therefore it should be entitled in accordance with it's definition to anything marked for Greenpeace International.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. GREED is unbecoming, but so is discriminating against Gays. The SA should be ashamed.

Greed and bigotry coming from a 'Christian' organization is just appalling....not to mention the money they're trying to take away from helping ENVIRONMENT. SICK!

[BuyingThyme]

7. Actually, they have no problem with Greenpeace getting the cash,

as long as they sit through a couple sermons first.

[SpiralHawk]

8. Onward Christian Mercenaries. Marching as to bank.

KA- CHING

This tells a lot about how Christianity has been perverted
by materialists, such as the republicon-christo-facist borg.

The name of BEAST is materialism


"Out of our way, you enviro-freaks. We want your MONEY." - 'Salvation Army

[fed-up]

9. technicalities be damned-how dare they not honor INTENT- n/t