How far will People go to bind their Families to their Ancestral Faith?
The division of property after a loved one has passed away can be a touchy subject. Will readings sometimes go smoothly, leaving everyone satisfied with the proceedings and focusing on the memories of their departed loved one; however, dividing up family property and money can also lead to fights, people stop talking to each other, and even lawsuits.
This is the case regarding the Estate of Max Feinberg, a wealthy Chicago dentist, who is causing some family strife with his will that disinherits any family members who married outside of the family's ancestral faith. The Chicago Tribune reports that it is also causing some discussions among judges as to whether a monetary prize can be used to bind family to a particular faith.
The Case of the Jewish Clause
The Feinberg case started out much like any family drama: two of Feinberg's grandchildren accused his daughter, the administrator of his estate, of prematurely dipping into the money Feinberg left to his wife, Erla. Michele Trull, one of Feinberg's granddaughters, is also accusing her father and Feinberg's son, Michael, of misusing family funds.
The case then took an interesting turn when the family and the court found out that Feinberg wrote his will to disinherit descendants "who married outside the Jewish faith." According to the clause, some of the grandchildren who married Gentiles are not considered heirs and technically have no right to bring suit. Michael Durkin, Michael Feinberg's lawyer, told The Chicago Tribune that "the case comes down to individual rights versus political correctness."
The Tangled Affair of the Max Feinberg Case
Michael Feinberg told The Chicago Tribune that the whole Jewish clause issue began when Feinberg found out that his grandson and Michael's son, Aron, was taking a Gentile to Niles West High School's junior prom. Feinberg told his grandson that he was "diluting the family's Jewishness."
It was after this incident that Feinberg chose to show his religious loyalty by adding the Jewish clause to his will. When he died in 1986, he left his money in a trust for his wife, with Michael and Leila Taylor, Feinberg's daughter, acting as executors of the estate and managing their mother's financial affairs. Erla Feinberg passed away in 2003 with a slew of lawsuits soon to follow.
Michael's children have accused Taylor, their aunt, and her husband of taking $1.6 million for their own benefit. The Taylors, in turn, asked the court to invoke the Jewish clause in Feinberg's will, which will disinherit Michael's two children for not marrying Jews. The clause will also disinherit two of Taylor's children, but since the money will revert back to Taylor, she can in turn give it to her children.
The lawsuits continued to mount as Trull sued her father for using her grandmother's money to do work on his house, buy a car and a summer home. Aron took himself out of the legal proceedings once his sister sued their father because he no longer wanted to be a part of the family feud.
According to The Chicago Tribune, Trull is the successful family member in court: The Appellate Court threw out the Jewish clause and Judge Susan Coleman has shifted the burden of proof to her father and aunt, ruling that Michael and Taylor have to prove that the ways they used their mother's money "was not the product of fraud or undue influence."
Sorting Out the Confusion in the Courtroom
The question surrounding this case has gotten judges thinking: Which side gives way when an individual's rights and society's rights are about to collide? Max Feinberg had the right to do what he wanted with his money, but how far should that right be extended? Is it possible for people to use their property and money to ensure that a religion or race survives, or is this considered religious or racial prejudice? If we allow people to disinherit their family based on religious choices, would we also allow people the right to disinherit family if they married outside of the family's race?
The Illinois Appellate Court seemed somewhat divided on the issue. The Chicago Tribune reported that Judge Alan Greiman wrote, "Max and Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream." However, Judge Patrick Quinn did not feel that the Jewish clause should be upheld: If Max Feinberg had reservations about his relatives marrying a black person, "do we really want courts to enforce the worst bigotry imaginable?"
Another consideration is should a family member be disinherited if they chose to continue to practice the family religion even though they married outside of it? And what if the couple agreed to raise their children Jewish? Would that still not earn the grandchild any of the family money?
The Chicago Tribune reported that Judge Quinn wrote that the Jewish clause in Feinberg's will poses a Solomonic technical problem. Feinberg's will defines offspring who marry outside of the Jewish faith as "deceased," but what happens if a relative divorced and remarried within the faith? Judge Quinn questioned whether the child would be considered "resurrected" by marrying back into the faith.
The Illinois Appellate Court ruled 2-1 that it would be "contrary to public policy" to honor the late Max Feinberg's wish. Greiman was the dissenter. Michael Feinberg is appealing the decision and waiting to hear if the Illinois Supreme Court will take the case.
