Himmelfarb v. Horwitz

Paul Himmelfarb established a trust for the benefit of his children and grandchildren. Following Paul’s death, his children would receive trust income in equal shares, and following the death of his children, his grandchildren would receive equal shares of the trust corpus. The trust contained a disqualification clause prohibiting any of Paul’s children or grandchildren from receiving a share of the trust income or corpus if the child or grandchild married outside the Jewish faith. After Paul died in 1968, the trustees—Ada Naiman, Frances Wolf, and Lillian Cooper (collectively, the trustees) (plaintiffs)—refused to pay one of Paul’s children, Morton Himmelfarb (plaintiff), his share of the trust income because Morton had married outside the Jewish faith. Instead, the trustees paid Morton’s share to Thomas E. Schumaker (defendant) as escrow agent. In an earlier case, the trustees and Paul’s children and grandchildren had entered into a consent judgment in which they agreed to support Morton’s attempts to invalidate the disqualification clause. The trustees then filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disqualification clause was invalid because it violated the First Amendment, was contrary to public policy, and was an illegal restraint on marriage. As defendants, the trustees named all eight of Paul’s children, all of Paul’s living grandchildren, and Schumaker (collectively, the beneficiaries) (defendants). None of the beneficiaries presented any argument against the trustees’ complaint, so the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem to argue against the trustees. The trustees moved for summary judgment, the beneficiaries remained silent, and the guardian ad litem opposed the motion. The trial court held that the disqualification clause was valid, and Morton appealed.