Chicagoist: IL Court Refuses to Enforce Man's Will

Ward Up

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:11:58 -0600

Max Feinberg: "Go ahead, put that anti-Goy-marriage clause in the will." Max's Lawyer: "With all due respect sir, it would not hold up in court." Max Feinberg: "Listen you schmuck. Put it in the will. What the hell am I paying you for?"

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:30:26 -0600

Albany- your analogy is flawed. No it's not. The will doesn't specify orthodox or any other manner of practice. It specifies ethnically Jewish, even if the 'ethnic' part is decided by the mother, not the father.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:23:15 -0600

Yes, but you are using the state's power to enforce your personal quibbles. The courts are forced to play along with a dead person's eugenic notions and punish someone for undertaking a perfectly legal activity. Restraint of the living outweighs the caprice of the dead.

Scooter Libbby

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:21:01 -0600

I'm not now & never have been a shyster, but I remember reading that the courts have been against "The dead hand" controlling the living with bizarre restrictions in wills.

mepps

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:45:56 -0600

Albany- your analogy is flawed. Sub in 'Muslim' for 'Christian' seems much more accurate. Also you say that "They can dispense of their wealth as they please. When they start trying to use wills as leverage it becomes an annoyance courts should be free to swat down."- These people are DEAD, how are they getting any leverage from this? Also, the notion of people 'furthering vendettas' or furthering charitable causes is the same idea! I don't see why the government should care whether I give all my money to NPR, or if I give all my money to NPR because my grandkids married gentiles!! What difference does it make? It's my money, not the states.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:25:28 -0600

I'm just surprised at the response to this. I was hoping more people would see the big picture, but alas, that's not the case. Sub in "gentile" for "black", there's a bigger picture for you. The notion of people using their wills to further vendettas or reign over their relatives from the hereafter is ridiculous. The public policy angle could be seen more as encouraging a harmonious society wherein people aren't bound by the restrictions of their long dead relatives. In addition, courts get into the messy business of determining questions of race ("Well, she's biracial, is that 'black'?") and religion ("He was born a jew, but is an avowed atheist") which is a waste of public time and money. People can write anyone they like out of their wills, they can leave all their money to the arbor foundation, or like Ray Croc's wife (the McDonald's founder) to NPR. They can dispense of their wealth as they please. When they start trying to use wills as leverage it becomes an annoyance courts should be free to swat down.

Slaphappy

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:02:43 -0600

Why is a cat being left millions any less egregious than demanding your descendants follow your marriage wishes from beyond the grave. Because a cat can't legally own assets. Courts have always been able to strike clauses from wills that violate public policy. But these aren't public assets, so I don't see how public policy comes into play. Again, my objection is to the court's ability to strike down clauses it doesn't agree with. The clause was basically a passive-aggressive way of saying that he didn't want the two grandchildren who didn't marry Jews to get an inheritance. If he had explicitly said that, this isn't news and this doesn't go to court. And if you think clauses like this are rare, I'd be willing to bet that isn't the case. I'm just surprised at the response to this. I was hoping more people would see the big picture, but alas, that's not the case.

dopplerd

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:33:46 -0600

The Trib article is crazy! That family would be a reality show I would watch. Max sounds like a prick and the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:32:24 -0600

As the opinion notes in the very begining of its analysis: "As early as 1898, our supreme court set forth the general rule that testamentary provisions which act as a restraint upon marriage or which encourage divorce are void as against public policy." Simply put, this is nothing new. Courts have always been able to strike clauses from wills that violate public policy. Just makes for a weird/juicy news story. The world is not grinding to a halt as we know it.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:22:33 -0600

Why is a cat being left millions any less egregious than demanding your descendants follow your marriage wishes from beyond the grave. The tiny percentage of people who are cranky or passive-aggressive enough to put weird nonsense like this into their wills being disenfranchised of their right to be assholes long after death doesn't seem like a great blow to freedom. Most people simply leave the money to people, or causes and leave it at that. Wills should not be a means for the dead to keep tormenting the living. That's why we have zombies.

Slaphappy

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:08:01 -0600

I could really care less about some dead old bigot But you should. The issue here isn't just about a Jew refusing to leave an inheritance to an heir who marries a Gentile, it's about the courts being able to decide what you can do with your own assets upon death. It's one thing to nullify a clause leaving everything to a family pet, but it's quite another to nullify a clause that requires a condition of inheritance in dealing with another person or entity, whether it's something you agree with or not. If the courts can nullify clauses like that, it puts the concept of a will in jeopardy.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:56:31 -0600

I could really care less about some dead old bigot, his hateful wishes should rot in the ground with him. Awww, poor Max.

Natalia1979

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:53:34 -0600

Gawd. This is such a catch-22. Yes, it infringes on a person's right to do anything they want with their money. BUT this person is now deceased. If his family so chooses, could they disperse the money as they see fit since it may have then been inherited by someone who doesn't care? There is nothing wrong with trying to strengthen one's culture. But we would all be troubled if someone wanted to leave their monies to family members who wanted to *gulp* create a "Master Race."

mepps

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:50:19 -0600

"seriously interferes with and limits the right of individuals to marry a person of their own choosing." so does Illinois now allow Gay marriage??

Slaphappy

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:49:47 -0600

Politically incorrect or not, I'm not seeing a legal issue with that clause.

bunnybear

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:44:41 -0600

Sounds like the appeals court ruling "seriously interferes with and limits the right of individuals" to grant their money to people of their choosing.

Albanyparkour

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:39:13 -0600

Max sounds like a schmuck.