Interesting court case whereby the entire will was declared void because the father was racist.
Would that not also apply to JW's who disinherit their non-JW family?
Have JW relatives disinherited you? (especially Canadian)
by berrygerry 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
blondie
I thought I had been until my parents died....and then I got about $10,000 from them. I was stunned...I figured they forgot to change the beneficiary. -
hoser
Interesting case. I guess it would be similar if one child was disinherited because of sexual orientation. -
William Penwell
I knew of a case here locally that the mother gave all her money to the WT because her children were not good dubs. All that did was sour the children even more against the WT. I think this could be challenged if there was no money left to the children. I have to say my parents were fair and the inheritance was equally split between all of their children dubs and non dubs. -
Sail Away
My husband has been expressly written out of his parents' will. He is an only child. He faded over 35 years ago, but is not DF'd. The estate is probably worth well over one million dollars, and the WT takes all. My in-laws have made it very clear that they "do not help adult children financially." Period. End of discussion. -
Chaserious
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/289385/thanks-mom-dad-oh-thanks-mother
In the link in the above thread, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld a couple's decision to give away (actually loan away) a large amount of assets to the Watchtower Society. It wasn't clear from that case if the children got anything at all, because that wasn't really the issue.
In almost every state of the U.S., parents can disinherit their children for any reason at all. A problem might come up if it is actually written in the will "and Susie gets nothing because of her [racial epithet] husband and child." Similarly, as the article says, it may not be enforced if it is tied to some contingency that's against public policy. For example "half of my estate to Susie, unless she is married to a Jew at the time of my death." But in the case the OP mentioned, there was nothing in the will that indicated the disinheritance had to do with racism. The racism came in through extrinsic evidence. So I don't think the same result would happen in the U.S. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this decision gets overturned on appeal.
I assume that my own parents have disinherited me. Like Blondie, I would be rather surprised if they ended up leaving me anything.
-
William Penwell
I know one thing that this cult will never get another nickel from me or my two sons who have no use for the cult either. -
sowhatnow
wow, I never considered that possibility. How twisted . I could never do that to my family, id at least leave it to a grandchild. you have got to wonder just how many people with no family donate all their assets to the wt.
-
under the radar
However well-meaning that judge was, I think it sets a dangerous precedent. It could be a slippery slope indeed if we start allowing the courts to decide who a person in their right mind can or cannot leave their money to.
Before anybody accuses me of being racist, let me say that while I am white, I actually do have the proverbial "black friends." In fact, I have a black sister-in-law and a black nephew (by marriage) and several mixed race nieces and nephews. They are treated by all exactly as any other member of the family, as they should be.
My problem with this ruling is that the court is poking its nose in where it has no business. As long as the deceased was in their right mind and not under undue influence when their will was made, it should be honored regardless of how odious their intentions or motivations are to others. If some court can decide that a particular individual or group doesn't deserve what someone else wants to give them, it opens the door for the government to suppress any group it finds distasteful. Or as in this case, it can give a decedent's assets to someone they clearly did not want to leave anything to.
Public policy against discrimination is one thing. But to interfere with a person's last wishes because they held unpopular, politically incorrect, or yes, even racist views is quite another. It represents an unwarranted and dangerous intrusion in a person's private life. The only exception I feel would be justified would be if the bequest would go to a person or organization engaged in outright criminal activities or advocating actual violence against others.
To be clear: I think the person who made the will was a jerk and a racist and not worthy of any decent person's time or respect. But the principle of self-determination should outweigh the fact that his hateful attitude unjustly disinherits his daughter in this instance. I think the will should be upheld, but the other daughter should then share the inheritance with her sister out of a sense of fairness. That way, it would be a matter of free will and not a matter of judicial political correctness.
-
3rdgen
Under the radar, I'm all for preserving freedom including the right to include or exclude people and organizations in one's will. However, the pertinent issue is :
Is the WTBT$ exerting strong encouragement for the members to leave some or all of their estates to them?
Are they encouraging "alienation of affection" of family members by their policies on shunning and labeling those who left or never were JWs?
Do they hound the elderly who often are no longer "sound of mind" for large donations which in turn depletes the estate? "
My daughter and I lost a family fortune (about 10mil) because Mom gave it all to the WTBT$ while still alive. I have an Great Aunt who left a 1mill+a year oil well to WTBT$ and nothing to her children. Hubby has a childless aunt who has willed her entire estate of over 1mil to the WTBT$. That's just our family!