Skip to Content
Kurtz & Augenlicht LLP is a general-practice law firm dedicated to serving the needs of ordinary people and small businesses in the greater Chicagoland area. We provide a wide variety of legal services at uncommonly affordable rates.

If you are in need of legal help, look around the site and see what we have to offer, or call us at the phone number at the bottom of the page. We look forward to hearing from you.

Consequences of an Interfaith Divorce

Few experiences are more draining and painful than divorce. Few topics engender as much emotion and rancor as arguments over religion. And few acts of government become more emotionally charged than court decisions about how parents can raise their children. So, for a really nasty fight, what could be better than combining all of these into one big mess?

It Begins

The Drew Peterson trial has begun in the Will County courtroom of Judge Stephen White, with hearings on the admissibility of various pieces of hearsay evidence. This is pretty normal -- a lot of trials have significant evidentiary issues that only a hearing can resolve -- it is atypical for the judge to be confronted with over 20 witnesses presenting various pieces of hearsay testimony. At least 20 witnesses. The prosecution's witness list for the trial has roughly 60 entries, and the hearings aren't over.

Over 20 witnesses whose testimony requires evidentiary hearings? What is going on down there?

I have the greatest respect State's Attorney Glasgow, and appreciate the strange position his office has found itself in: an incredibly unpopular defendant being pursued by what appears to be a very flimsy case. What's worse, due to the publicity of this prosecution, the state legislature got involved, and now things are a giant mess. Consider this a quick primer on the slow-motion train wreck going on in Joliet.

Problems With The Fineberg Decision: The Law of Unintended Consequences

The Illinois Supreme Court's recent decision, In Re Fineberg, seems to uphold the ability of testators (people transferring property through a will or trust) to base the distribution of assets on the religious practices of their beneficiaries. The Fineberg case involved a Jewish couple (the Finebergs) with an estate plan that placed their assets in trust and provided for distribution to their descendants. However, the trust instrument provided that a descendant who married a non-Jewish spouse (that did not convert within a year of marriage) would not receive a share of the trust. Four of the five grandchildren married outside of the faith and were therefore disqualified under the testamentary scheme established by the Finebergs. Overruling the appellate court, the Illinois Supreme Court validated the disposition based upon the religion and seemed to hold that this type of estate planning does not violate public policy.

While, as an attorney, Fineberg provides a basis for me to create religiously-based estate plans, I must note that there are two major problems with the court's decision: (1) it lacks clarity that is bound to engender further litigation and (2) it creates a whole host of legal issues that probate courts in the future will have to resolve.

Syndicate content