Post by lairezippert on Sept 26, 2009 17:41:26 GMT 4
Prior to his death in 1986, Max Feinberg and his wife Erla, established a trust for the sole purpose of ensuring that their accrued assets were distributed according to their values and wishes. Upon the death of Max in 1986, their estate was split and Max's assets were held in trust for the benefit of his wife until such time as she died. According to the trust, upon Erla's death, Max's grandchildren would become lifetime beneficiaries of those trusts so long as they married within the Jewish faith or their spoused converted to Judaism within one year. According to the trust, if any grandchild married outside of the Jewish faith, their portion would revert back to their parents. This stipulation would become known as the "Jewish Clause".
Erla, who wholly supported her husband's beliefs, would take this stipulation a step further in exercising control over her half of the estate. Upon her death in 2003, she bequeathed $250,000 to a single grandchild who married within the faith and left nothing to her four other grandchildren. As a result, Michele Feinberg Trull, a disinherited granddaughter launched a lawsuit against the trust claiming that the trusts violated the law by offering money to practice a particular religion.
After losing early court battles, Trull pushed the lawsuit all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, who unanimously upheld the right of individuals to unequally bequeath assets based upon religious beliefs. In the decision the court cited that individuals could legally disinherit any family member who married outside of a particular faith, so long as such a method did not encourage divorce. Justice Rita Garman wrote, "although those plans might be offensive to individual family members or to outside observers, Max and Erla were free to distribute their bounty as they saw fit and to favor grandchildren of whose life choices they approved."
The court determined that at no point did the trusts encourage the grandchildren to divorce or remarry within their faith. Garman cited that the trust's provisions were not intended to control, but rather "made a bequest to reward, at the time of her death, those grandchildren whose lives most closely embraced the values she and Max cherished".
Trusts have long been the preferred legal tool to provide families greater control over the distribution of assets. If the Illinois Supreme Court had ruled against the trust, the decision may have undermined the foundation of such legal documents and opened the door to a slew of new legal challenges by family members disinherited because they did not share the values of their family.
Erla, who wholly supported her husband's beliefs, would take this stipulation a step further in exercising control over her half of the estate. Upon her death in 2003, she bequeathed $250,000 to a single grandchild who married within the faith and left nothing to her four other grandchildren. As a result, Michele Feinberg Trull, a disinherited granddaughter launched a lawsuit against the trust claiming that the trusts violated the law by offering money to practice a particular religion.
After losing early court battles, Trull pushed the lawsuit all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, who unanimously upheld the right of individuals to unequally bequeath assets based upon religious beliefs. In the decision the court cited that individuals could legally disinherit any family member who married outside of a particular faith, so long as such a method did not encourage divorce. Justice Rita Garman wrote, "although those plans might be offensive to individual family members or to outside observers, Max and Erla were free to distribute their bounty as they saw fit and to favor grandchildren of whose life choices they approved."
The court determined that at no point did the trusts encourage the grandchildren to divorce or remarry within their faith. Garman cited that the trust's provisions were not intended to control, but rather "made a bequest to reward, at the time of her death, those grandchildren whose lives most closely embraced the values she and Max cherished".
Trusts have long been the preferred legal tool to provide families greater control over the distribution of assets. If the Illinois Supreme Court had ruled against the trust, the decision may have undermined the foundation of such legal documents and opened the door to a slew of new legal challenges by family members disinherited because they did not share the values of their family.