Max Feinberg, a long time Illinois resident, was extremely observant of the obligations and tenets of his Jewish faith. Mr. Feinberg had strong convictions that his children and grandchildren should follow in his religious footsteps. An integral part of those footsteps involved marrying within the Jewish faith. Accordingly, when Mr. Feinberg had his estate planning wishes put onto paper, he instructed his attorney to include language that would encourage his descendents to marry within the Jewish faith. Specifically, Mr. Feinberg's will provided that any descendent that married outside the Jewish faith, and whose non-Jewish spouse did not convert to Judaism within one year of marriage, would be deemed to be deceased as of the date of their marriage. This provision became known as the “Jewish Clause”.
The first stop on the judicial roadway was in the Trial Court. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Michelle when it found that the “Jewish Clause" was invalid based on the grounds of public policy. Michael appealed the decision but lost again at the appellate court level with a divided Appellate Court affirming the lower court ruling. The Appellate Court found that the Jewish Clause violated Illinois law because it interfered with and limited the rights of people to marry someone of their own choosing. This ruling was also made on a public policy basis.
Not to be deterred, Michael appealed all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court. After review of the briefs of the parties, briefs of third parties and oral arguments, the above referenced Trial and Appellate Courts’ rulings were reversed by the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court found that the limitations being placed on Max Feinberg's grandchildren were not unreasonable and were not in violation of Illinois law. The basis and rationale for the court's decision will be the subject of my next article.
Comments