I’m a little surprised by all the kneejerk reactions calling the grandfather a bigot.

Firstly: how do you know they were kneejerk reactions? How do you know how long each poster thought before posting?

More importantly: this person is threatening to deprive his grandchildren of a substantial sum of money; this is based not in any way on how good they are as people, or on how good their spouses are as people, but on the ethnic/religious group their spouse happened to be born into. If this is not bigotry, then what on earth do you think the word ‘bigot’ means?

@DSimon… I think I baited an Ayn Rand worshiper.

Bad jemand! Bad! No!

I don’t have any knowledge about the legality of grandpa bigot’s booby-trapped will. But I do know that’s it’s a dick move either way.

I’m a little surprised by all the kneejerk reactions calling the grandfather a bigot. In a lot of ways Jewishness is more an ethnic and cultural identity than a religion, and there’s a real sense of being an “endangered species,” if you will. In one famous case, the father specified that his sons had to marry a Jewish woman by a certain age in order to get the inheritance (his only daughter was already married and living in Israel at the time), and if they didn’t, the money went to the state of Israel. The court basically pointed out that he was obviously trying to use his money to maintain the Jewish state, whether through his own offspring or not.

I think this is probably more about maintaining your “heritage” through the family line than religion, especially given that we’re talking Judaism here and not, say, some branch of fundamentalist Christianity.

I’m always slightly disgusted at people who consider inheritance their “right”. This sense of entitlement is totally beyond me.

This.

Where the hell do people get the nerve to try to contest the will (literally and figuratively) of a relative? Gramma has every right to leave her entire fortune to her cats if she wants to.

Where does this sense of ‘entitlement’ come from anyway?

Yes, it is the testator’s money and it is his decision where it should go. But I think that if he wants to cut out one of his five grandchildren he should have to change his will to say explicitly that the money is to go to A, B, D and E. And if B then does something he disagrees with, he should have to change his will again to leave the money to A, D and E. In other words he can be a jerk, but he has to do some work if he wants to be a jerk. He shouldn’t be allowed to leave a paper booby-trap lying around.

The only conditional clauses allowed should be to cover the situation if a person dies or an organisation ceases to exist.

It’s cumbersome, yes. He certainly didn’t have to deem them “deceased” for purposes of the will. Wills can contain language that devises property based on conditions without having to go quite that far.

Also, @Bobby, Volokh wouldn’t apply, as I see it. The court wasn’t deciding who’s Jewish and who is not. It’s deciding whether the clause in the will is valid as applied to the grandchildren.

@muggle – The Rule Against Perpetuities prevents a testator from controlling the property that many generations down the road. Most states have enacted a version of it for property transactions and wills/trusts. It goes like this: “No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after some life in existence at the creation of the interest.”

In other words, if X is the last grandkid born during the grandfather’s life, the will may not control the property for more than 21 years after X’s death. (roughly)