Haddonfield, NJ – A New Jersey woman who claims her father wrongly disinherited her because of her romantic relationship with a Jewish man has lost another round in her legal fight to set aside the will.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
A New Jersey appellate court recently upheld a lower court ruling that found Kenneth Jameson did nothing illegal when he specified that his only surviving child, Stacy Wolin, should not get anything from his estate. Jameson contended that his daughter had not returned “the love, care and concern which I lavished” on her and instead “acted toward me with selfishness, manipulation, cruelty and with abusiveness.”
Jameson was 81 when he died in April 2014. The Haddonfield man left his estate to a nonprofit that serves people with developmental disabilities.
Wolin claims the will, drafted in 1987, should be set aside because her father’s decision stemmed from religious bias. She contended that her father’s actions violated the state’s bias laws and that the will’s “fabricated” criticism of her was libelous.
Wolin said her parents disowned her because she refused to end a relationship with a Jewish student at her college who she eventually married.
In the ruling issued Friday, the appellate court noted that state anti-discrimination laws don’t outlaw disinheritances based on alleged religious biases.
Even though a will may be “contrary to the principles of justice and humanity (and) its provisions may be shockingly unnatural and unfair,” the appellate panel said courts are required to uphold wills if the person drafting the document was competent and of sufficient age.
Attorneys for both sides declined comment.
___
Information from: Courier-Post (Cherry Hill, N.J.), http://www.courierpostonline.com/
Gee…they put their heads in the oven too!
Bravo! Glad she lost the appeal. Glad that her jewish live in will also reap no benefit from his illicit relationship. Also may her deceased father rest forever and ever knowing he performed his anti-Semite roll in life perfectly well. I hope with the publicity of this court ruling others will learn to do the same. It’s time intermarriages are curbed by hitting the wallet.
Nice try Honey but, next time, stick to your own religion!
There should be more non-Jewish men like Mr Jameson who don’t want their children marrying Jews.
obviously the father’s hatred of Jews far outweighed his love for his (only) child….just like the arabs.
I remember same ruling in a reverse case where a Jew disinherited one kid for marrying out so this is fair. I wouldn’t want my kids having dreads and named Deandre.
I don’t believe the father did anything wrong, why does he have to leave his inheritance to his daughter? The assets he acquired in his lifetime can be disbursed to anyone of his liking, regardless of rationale reasoning or not.
Wow I can’t help notice the contrast between Donald and this guy. Donald’s daughter went a step further and converted herself to Judaism. Yet, he so respectful. Not only will Ivanka get an inheritance, Donald entrusts his empire with a frum jewish son-in law. That’s’ a real ohev yisroel and someone that will be great for the jews.
Perhaps the reason was as the father said ,not as the daughter claims.This not uncommon,during the life time of the relative they have no interest in them,and when they get disinherited they challenge the will.
For those applauding this decision on the grounds that it’s good because the intermarriage should not have taken place, you are being very short sighted. Would you support the same ruling if a Chassidic man disinherited his son for marrying a Litvishe girl (or vice versa)? Sure, you’ll say, that you won’t because those marriages are allowed under Jewish law, but remember that these cases are not adjudicated according to halacha but according to the laws of the state where the will is filed.
That being said, I also acknowledge that a person has the right, under those same laws, to distribute his property as he wishes after his death (with certain exceptions that are made in state law) and therefore, as odious as the decedent was, the decision should stand.