Ill. high court OKs 'Jews only' inheritance

[The Straight Story]

Ill. high court OKs 'Jews only' inheritance

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS (AP) – 20 hours ago

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Proud of his religion and worried about its future, Chicago dentist Max Feinberg wrote a will with an unusual catch: His grandchildren wouldn't inherit a penny if they married someone who wasn't Jewish.

His decision led to family feuds, lawsuits, counterclaims and, on Thursday, a unanimous ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court that Feinberg and his wife were within their rights to disinherit any grandchildren who married outside the faith.

"Equal protection does not require that all children be treated equally ... and the free exercise clause does not require a grandparent to treat grandchildren who reject his religious beliefs and customs in the same manner as he treats those who conform to his traditions," Justice Rita Garman wrote in a ruling that overturned decisions by two lower courts.

One disinherited granddaughter had argued it was improper for a will to set up conditions that promote religious intolerance in people's marriage decisions or even encouraged couples to divorce.

"It is at war with society's interest in eliminating bigotry and prejudice, and conflicts with modern moral standards of religious tolerance," said Michele Feinberg Trull's brief to the Supreme Court.

The court's ruling was based partly on technicalities in the way this estate was arranged. The court did not provide a broad ruling on whether similar religious restrictions would be valid under other circumstances.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j8QwP4ZvRjh-5EDghmS7q9wwP_DgD9ATU9L80

[closeupready]

1. This is actually not all that uncommon.

Nor is it new. It's definitely sad, but it's legal.

[truebrit71]

2. Not sure that there's anything wrong with the decision...it was his money..

...he can give it to whomever he likes, on whatever conditions he chose...

[KamaAina]

3. Ewwwwww.

Any leeway for the goyim to convert so the spouse can claim the inheritance? :shrug:

edit: What if it was, say, Strom Thurmond's will and he'd disinherited any children who married outside their race?

[clear eye]

43. It would have been more crap from an SOB, but legal, I guess.

I don't see this as institutionalizing anything. It wouldn't even be a donation to an organization perpetuating racism. I'm not sure I'd be real comfortable w/ courts striking down bigoted behavior in private. It would veer awfully close to thought police. I mean who gets to decide what's bigoted?

[Sannum]

4. Mr. Feinberg, you are an asshole.

What about a clause that disinherited children if they married someone black or hispanic - this is back door bigotry and I am appalled that the court would rule for it.

And reason 7940329493 that organized religion in any form is complete bullshit.

[Statistical]

10. You family members actions are not subject to a prohibition on bigotry.

The 14th restricts the actions of governments not individuals.

While it is sad it certainly isn't legal. Inheritance are rarely fair to begin with. Nobody is "owed" an inheritance.

[mudplanet]

25. In Louisiana, you are. It's Napoleonic code.

[Libertas1776]

31. Actually, although

Louisiana does in fact have mostly a civil law system as opposed to common law like the rest of the country, it is far more likely that its system was inspired by the Spanish and not the French as the Code Napoleon was not adopted until 1804, a year after the US's acquisition of Louisiana............and I hope this little historical anecdote hasn't bored you to death.

[Johonny]

11. shrug

You mean you want to force him to give his money to people you (or the STATE) chose instead of him. That doesn't seem very liberal an idea. It's his money. I have no problem with inheritance taxes and stuff like that. After that what's left over was his and he can leave it to who he chooses (as long as he's in his right mind at the time of the will). Would you feel the same way if the kids were suing because he gave it all away to ACORN? Or if he didn't give the money to his kids because he thought they were self absorbed * or worse a Teabagger. The guys clearly not very progressive in religious tolerance, but I'm sure I don't want to force tolerance on people outside the commons. I want the right to dislike people.

[BonnieJW]

17. It's not really bigotry.

It seems like it, but it's not. Jews are disappearing because of assimilation. Jews marry non-Jews and to keep everyone happy, NO religion is practiced at all. Those kids grow up and marry and just go along with whatever their spounse wants to do since they weren't raised in a Jewish household. Many Jewish parents and grandparents are trying to preserve the Jewish religion in their families and this is the way they choose to do it.

[sui generis]

20. and voting for Obama because he's black isn't racism.

what ever.

[uppityperson]

23. "Those kids grow up and marry and just go along with whatever their spounse wants to do"?

If everyone gives into their spouse, then neither one in a marriage/partnership would do anything since both would give in. Or are you saying that kids who grow up in families that don't actively practice a religion are most likely to.... "go along with whatever their spouse wants to do"?

[BonnieJW]

18. It's not really bigotry

It seems like it, but it's not. Jews are disappearing because of assimilation. Jews marry non-Jews and to keep everyone happy, NO religion is practiced at all. Those kids grow up and marry and just go along with whatever their spounse wants to do since they weren't raised in a Jewish household. Many Jewish parents and grandparents are trying to preserve the Jewish religion in their families and this is the way they choose to do it.

[anonymous171]

5. That, my friends, is what we call a dick move.

[joeybee12]

6. It's his money...

...he may be a dick, but it's still his money.

[old mark]

7. My wife and I are the recipients of such a trust - It is a means of continuing control

of the lives of your progeny after you are dead. There are literally an entire sub-class of lawyers working this field to ensure such wills/trusts are as unbreakable as possible.

The pisser is that they are fucking dead - I can't even yell at them anymore.


mark

[Critters2]

12. I don't see how it's controlling lives.

If you're married to a Jew, you get money. If not, you don't. That's the end of it. If the money is so important that you resent your spouse, well, that's an issue. BUt it's not the deceased's issue.

If you can't meet the conditions, you don't get the money. Much of life is like this...if you don't show up for work, they won't pay you, either. But, ultimately, you make the choice.

[redqueen]

22. It's an *attempt* to control, then.

And it's very shitty.

People with lots of money often do such things to their children. It's sickening IMO.

[MellowDem]

33. That was the silliest comparison I've seen today...

If you're married to a white, you get money. If not, you don't. There's a good comparison. Whether legal or not, it is an attempt to "punish" your relatives if they don't follow *your* specific worldview, which is a way of exerting control.

[dugaresa]

29. I personally know a trust lawyer who hates such trusts

in fact he thinks trusts create problems in families.

One of the trusts he managed was gigantic and one of the relatives who received funds could not live with the $500K+ payments per year. He kept spending way more. He wanted to break the trust to get the whole piggy bank. My friend said that he only wished he could let that guy get all the cash because he felt it woudl be a great life lesson to see him completely blow it and then have to earn an income for the remainder of his life.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. How the HELL did this ever become a matter for a state Supreme Court to decide?

If Michelle had the financial resources to take a family dispute that far, I doubt she really needed Grandpa's money anyway.

[JeanGrey]

9. I don't have a problem with it. Even if I personally consider it

wrong, it was his money. Look how hard Katherine Jackson is trying to get around Micheal's will.

[sui generis]

13. I agree with the stipulation, but not the judicial opinion

rejecting or conforming to religious beliefs and traditions is not in and of itself an comprehensive example or exclusion of other beliefs, or traditions, including the lack of a belief or a tradition.

In fact, legally it is legally extremely difficult to "prove" that someone is of "the faith" using any evidence other than faith.

Where gramps went wrong was in putting the clause in there at all. What is to keep so and so from merely declaring he has converted to reform judaism? Does the stipulation that she marry a jew mean if she divorces her christian husband, has him do shul and then remarries him as a "jewish" spouse that she is now entitled? Is there any period to "remedy" given or did it have to have happened by the time of gramps' demise?

At any rate, questions of faith aside you either intend to give or you do not. don't wrap it in a flowery passive aggressive excuse.

Finally, this solomon sez, if my ancestors willed me a fortune and not my sibs I would take care of them anyway out of familial duty, PERIOD.

The ball is in my court, not grampas. And if that didn't happen, they weren't a family to begin with. Here's your half of the baby, have a heydey.

[FarCenter]

16. Why wouldn't this condition be unenforceable as "against public policy"?

[sui generis]

19. because "public policy" is not defined in legal terms

I can stipulate exactly how or even if my money is bequeathed to anyone I like, just as they can as easily refuse to accept it for any of the same reasons.

There is nothing that requires a reason for refusing to accept an inheritance any more than to bequeath the inheritance, especially to the second generation.

It's enforceable because the executor or probate officer must execute the wishes of the bequestor as closely as possible and settle the bequestors estate accordingly. If I wanted to give me poodle 10 million dollars and my rat bastard adult brat nothing, my poodle has a greater claim to my fortune (if I had poodle and a rat bastard 50 year old son). The only time a claim can be made otherwise is in the case of disentangling mutual assets or dependent beneficiaries, and even those laws vary from state to state.

[FarCenter]

26. There does seem to be a principle that contract that are agains "public policy" are not enforceable

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_law.html

No Violation of Public Policy

In order to be enforceable, a contract cannot violate "public policy". For example, if the subject matter of a contract is illegal, you cannot enforce the contract. A contract for the sale of illegal drugs, for example, violates public policy and is not enforceable.

Please note that public policy can shift. Traditionally, many states refused to honor gambling debts incurred in other jurisdictions on public policy grounds. However, as more and more states have permitted gambling within their own borders, that policy has mostly been abandoned and gambling debts from legal enterprises are now typically enforceable. (A "bookie" might not be able to enforce a debt arising from an illegal gambling enterprise, but a legal casino will now typically be able to enforce its debt.) Similarly, it used to be legal to sell "switchblade kits" through the U.S. mail, but that practice is now illegal. Contracts for the interstate sale of such kits were no longer enforceable following that change in the law.

---

Apparently, the laws against religious discrimination are not broad enough to make religious discrimination in wills unenforceable?

[sui generis]

35. but a contract is entered into by more than one party

so a covenant of a contract has to be agreed upon by the participating parties. I think the principle you're referring to could be construed as Mr. X and Mr. Y have a contract to get married to each other but public policy in some states forbids marriage between two people of the same gender, so their contract is unenforceable.

In that particular case public policy refers to law rather than sentiment. There is no policy barring individuals from being eccentric, even if that eccentricity is perceived (rightly so) as a form of bigotry.

I think the underlying reason for the court's decision is based on the very simplest idea: no party involved had an inherent "right" to inherit to begin with. If you are an adult, even blood relative, you have no claim on inheritance that isn't specifically granted to you in the presence of a last will and testament. Now if you are next of kin and your kin died intestate, then you have a potential claim, but in this case, he did have a legal and enforceable will.

So the court treats these as any ordinary stipulation - it's not breaking the law or depriving anyone of a civil right to have a bigoted stipulation.

Again, if I were the other sibs I'd go ahead and split the money anyway and screw cranky old granddad. At that point it truly is out of his hands if all the stipulations have been met up front and it's his sibs who pass the money through their own accounts.

[FarCenter]

37. Thank you for the explanation

[clear eye]

44. What if it wasn't a sib but a cousin who was disinherited?

First cousins have the same grandparents on one side.

[Kerrytravelers]

14. This guy seems like a real gem.

Money isn't worth giving up who you are or who you love. No thanks.

[clear eye]

45. Exactly.

That's why I'm uncomfortable w/ the posts saying that he's "forcing" people to divorce a spouse!? IMO, you're "forced" only if you refuse to live w/o grandpa's megabucks. Just b/c he's attempted to control his grandkids doesn't mean he can.

[FarCenter]

15. Convert -- As Henry IV of France said "Paris is well worth a mass".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_France

Of course Gabrielle d'Estrées may have been worth it, as well.

[JerseygirlCT]

21. I'm surprised someone actually thought they'd win that one

His money; he can leave to whomever he damned well pleases.

Not that I much like his condition.

[Meshuga]

28. I agree 100% n/t

[Union Yes]

24. Religion is a corrupting force that instills this kind of bigotry.

All for a "god" that noone has ever or will ever be able to prove with science.

Reigion ain't worth the hate it breeds.

[Meshuga]

27. I know the article mentions "Jewish faith"

But I don't think the conditions set are about belief but about being married within the Jewish community. Being Jewish does not necessarily mean being a believer. The will says nothing about an atheist Jew. And an atheist Jew would technically get the inheritance if he/she married another atheist Jew.

[surrealAmerican]

40. It just means the writer wasn't Jewish.

Christians frequently don't understand that Judaism is more of a tribal identity than a belief system.

[Libertas1776]

30. Yes, it really is a dick move IMHO

but it's his money and the dead meshugener can do with it what he pleases.

[Posteritatis]

32. Bad man, good decision. (nt)

[petronius]

34. I've always felt a great deal of disdain for anyone who contests a will

Unless there's been fraud by another heir, or something similar, it has always struck me as a greedy ugly thing to do...

[alarimer]

36. I'd tell grandad to shove his money where the sun doesn't shine.

His blood money would not dictate my happiness.

[dysfunctional press]

38. what a complete waste of the court's time...

:eyes:

some people's greed and sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

[Odin2005]

39. Stupid decision.

[bluestateguy]

41. I respect the rights of anyone to leave whatever instrictions they wish in their will

Including this case.

[11 Bravo]

42. Would I do it? No. But it's his estate and his will. End of story.