A testator's will provides that if his son is still married to a person not of the Jewish faith at his death, the son forfeits his share; Will the language be respected?

• A. Yes, it is enforceable
• B. No, it would disrupt a family relationship
• C. It depends on the state
• D. It is void for public policy reasons

Answer: (B)

The tested idea is that inheritance terms cannot punish or coerce a beneficiary based on his or her religion or marriage. A clause that says the son loses his share if he remains married to someone not of the Jewish faith places a religiously based condition on an heir and interferes with a deeply personal life decision. Courts generally view such restraints as contrary to public policy because they disrupt family harmony and undermine fundamental freedoms—religious liberty and the right to marry whom one chooses. Because enforcing the condition would undermine those values, the provision is not respected; it’s treated as invalid or unenforceable, and the estate passes as if the condition never existed. In short, the language would not be enforced because it would disrupt the family and clash with public policy, rather than upholding a valid restraint.