More than one in ten cats and dogs that entered United States animal shelters in 2025 were surrendered because their owner had died or become ill, according to Best Friends Animal Society, a non-profit advocacy group campaigning for no-kill statuses across the country’s shelter network.
The organisation’s report found that 12.4% of the 4.74 million cats and dogs taken into shelters that year arrived for those reasons.
Estate lawyers and therapists say the outcome is largely avoidable. Through a provision in a will or a dedicated pet trust, an owner can specify who takes the animal and how its day-to-day care is funded.
“Pets rely entirely on human care. Without a plan, they face stress, shelter, surrender or unnecessary euthanasia during an already chaotic time,” said Peter Klein, founder of the therapy referral website Seek a Psych and a London-based cognitive behavioural therapist in private practice.
Azriel J Baer, a trust and estate attorney at New York law firm Farrell Fritz, PC, said clients raise the question regularly but seldom know how to resolve it. Some want to establish a trust holding substantial money, he said, while others simply want “the right person” to receive the dog or cat.
Naming the fear first
Klein said fear is the main reason the task gets postponed. When he works with clients facing the end of their life, he begins by naming the feeling. “You are not being morbid and you are not being dramatic. That feeling is usually anticipatory grief and it needs saying out loud before it can be acted on,” he said.
In his experience, the anxiety usually resolves into something simpler: “This animal has been the one steady relationship through a very bad time, and the person cannot bear the thought of it waiting by the door.”
The most common error, Klein said, “is focusing on the emotional connection, and on the need to keep the animal close, without thinking about what the animal actually needs day to day”.
Assumptions are equally risky. Jennifer Townes, an Oregon-based trust and estate attorney at T Leo Law, said relatives rarely step forward simply because they understand how much a pet mattered to someone. “Assuming a sibling or child will take a pet often leads to pets ending up in shelters, given away or simply abandoned,” she said.
Baer recommends an explicit conversation, however awkward it feels, to establish who genuinely wants the responsibility.
Be specific, and put it in writing
Wording matters. Baer said some clients name individual animals in their documents, which creates a problem if the pet dies first and is replaced. Referring to “any pets that I have at the time of my death” closes that gap, he said.
Verbal promises carry no legal weight. “Telling a neighbor, ‘If anything happens to me, take Max,’ creates no legal obligation,” Townes said. “After death, family members or executors can refuse to hand the pet over, or your neighbors can conveniently forget their earlier promises.”
At minimum, Baer said, an owner can leave a provision in a will directing the pet to a named caretaker — though he noted that the specifics are then left to that individual. The Animal Legal Defense Fund points out that wills are intended for the distribution of property and assets, so pet provisions may not always be legally enforceable.
Townes described the risk of vagueness. “Leaving cash to a relative to take care of a pet in a standard will means the relative can take the money, take the pet to a shelter the next day and legally keep every penny,” she said.
A pet trust offers stronger protection. Townes said all 50 US states and the District of Columbia explicitly permit the creation of a legally binding pet trust in some form. Money is held by a trustee, who is then responsible for paying a caregiver for the animal’s needs, and the owner can tailor care instructions and funding levels.
“Money is the part people skip,” Klein said. “Vet care is the real cost, so a sum set aside matters more than good intentions.”
Baer said it is worth naming a backup caretaker in the document in case the first choice can no longer take on the responsibility. Townes added that valuable animals — a purebred horse, a breeding dog or a rare bird — can provoke disputes among heirs over who gets to sell them.
When generosity invites a court challenge
Baer, who advises high-net-worth clients, warned that large sums left without precise instructions invite litigation. When hotel and real estate scion Leona Helmsley died in 2007, she left $12m to her dog, Trouble, effectively cutting her family off from their inheritance. Her grandchildren challenged the will, and a court reduced the amount held in trust to a more reasonable $2m.
“If you’re excessive, the court can claw that back,” Baer said.
Klein framed the purpose of any arrangement plainly. “The animals do not know they are in a story about death,” he said. “They only know whether the person they trust turns up.”
COMMENTS