What’s the big deal, Just let the guy have his Inheritance, no disrespect for the dead but that should be illegal to say that he has to marry the woman of his child because as he has said, in his case the woman was a surrogate.
My belief: he should still be entitled to his money as it is his inheritance regardless, at the end of the day it was only his dads wish, right now, hes dead, no disrespect, so he has no say in it.
It’s the grandchild who’s losing his inheritance, not Robert Mandelbaum. It appears that Mandelbaum wasn’t due to get any anyway (at least according to this report).
Unfortunately inheritance isn’t an entitlement and Mandelbaum senior could have decided to do anything he wanted with the money. It is grossly unfair the kid is being singled out by the grandfather because he happens to have two gay dads whereas his the other grandchildren get the money willed to them regardless. I wonder if he’s put in any clauses about their parents separating or divorcing? That aside, using a child as a weapon in this way is completely immoral.
Also, it’s all very well saying ‘just marry her and take the money’ – what about her wishes? She signed up to have a baby, not to get married to a man she doesn’t love and who, equally, doesn’t love her. It was a contract of convenience – she rented out her body. Why should she rent out the rest of her life?
Don’t be so bloody naive. Why should it be illegal?
It’s his damn money, he can give it to who he likes.
He has simply set conditions. The son has every right to stick two fingers up and walk away should he wish to.
He apparently died in 2007, a good two years before the grandson could have been conceived.
It would appear that the money left in trust was for any and all grandchildren and they are all subject to the same clause – that the parents marry (each other) within 6 months of the baby’s birth. It just so happens that the conditions were met for the other two existing grandchildren – there’s no mention of a posthumous clause specifically addressing the gay son and his husband having a child. And chances are, their decision to have a child wasn’t something the old man was aware of.
It seems more like the clause was based around his conservative views on marriage and child rearing, rather than homophobia. After all, the PN story says Robert Mandelbaum and his husband were often included in family activities – had the old bloke lived longer he may have been able to update his views on marriage and child rearing too.
Yet another stunning example of how to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Now will any priest step forward to say this shouldn’t happen one wonders?
Typical bigot, using money as a carrot and stick method to ‘turn’ his son.
Frank Mandelbaum would sooner encourage two people to live a lie to suit his selfish ends that accept he had a gay son.
That would hardly be the basis for a happy marriage or a happy home for the grandchild!
Just one more example of a “Toxic” parent using guilt and manipulation to get their way.
Even in death as this example, parents are showing their abuse with disrespectful and unreasonable demands or disinheritance in their wills.
On a further note… If Mr. Mandelbaum were my husband and described me… his partner and father of our child as the “closest thing to a mother his son had” he’d pretty soon find himself free to marry the person of his choice!
There are plenty of gay men out there married to women. Just get on with it and give the woman a few bob for her services.
As soon as he has the money, get a divorce, and let the miserable old fart of a Father curse from a warm place in Hell.
With a parent this manipulative and toxic, that is probably covered on page 3!
* All monies will be paid on the fifth anniversary of the marriage, “In the event the said marriage is a sham” or is ended
by divorce prior to the date of the said anniversary or the natural death of the wife….
Delightful, Spaniel1960, as usual. The $60k he stands to get in trust for his son will in no way cover *her services*.
T w u n t.
In Manhattan, the legal fee’s alone to divorce Mr. O”Donnell just so he could remarry would likely wipe out that much and more before he could get a blood test for a new marriage license!
As for the remarriage “her services” (this is America) likely best described by reference to “Gold digger”
Hopefully the judge will rule the will to be “unusually cruel and abusive” or what ever and just give him the money!
Why is she a gold digger? She hasn’t come out and said “I’ll do it for x amount”. And with regard to her surrogacy, we don’t know what their arrangement was..
Also, why does he need to have a blood test to get a marriage license? Is it for DNA proof of identity or something? Is that normal for America?
Hopefully the judge will see it as out and out bigotry and will do the child more harm than good and rule in their favour.
First I referenced the term “gold digger” because the potential for opportunist is not going unnoticed. (a fool and money are soon parted, and in north America only a fool marries without one!) money can be a great influence in deception.
Some… though not all States (regardless of the potential for cohabitation) required/may still require blood test for genetic or transmitted diseases as part of the marriage application process..
a fool and money are soon parted, and in north America only a fool marries without ones prenuptial agreement
As you pointed out yourself, it’s likely to cost him more than the £60k in trust (for his son…..) to get divorced from his husband. Even if he could access his son’s money, there would be none left – how can she then be considered a gold-digger? If anything, were that to happen, it is he who would be the gold-digger because HE would be doing for the money.
Yes, why on earth not. I mean, it’s ONLY a step back in marrage equality after all…….!
Cool. So tell him to stick his money then.
Obviously your principles are stronger than your bank balance.
And yours are only slightly stronger than rizla papers. It’s $60k. He’d have to divorce the other bloke and marry her just to secure his son’s inheritance, which by the time that’s all done will probably only get him a few marvel comics.
I’m curious how this is going to work out – I think all sorts of weird stipulations can be made in Wills: I wonder if he’d specified that his son marry someone of a specific race or religion as a condition of the the grandson’s inheritance, there would also be a claim of discrimination?
Yes, there could be. A couple of years ago, the Supreme Court of Illinois decided that a clause discriminating in children/grandchildren based on their religion is against the Illinois law.
Money is not everything. Money does not buy happiness or love, it only covers up the sadness and creates strife. A sad situation.
It doesn’t buy everything, but it makes life a damn sight easier.
Bite the bullet and marry the bitch.
You really are a revolting misogynist spanner
Marry! Or the kid (My grandson) doesn’t get it.
Actually the old man must have had a few watts short to light a bulb anyway…. (2007 he died) so the will was obviously prior “but” he left money to the non existent grandchild of his gay son on the “presuming” his son would marry a wife he didn’t want to get his child the inheritance?
The judge should just conclude the old man had dementia and give the grandchild he “imagined” having the money!
What a horrible, spiteful thing to do.
Why not just forfeit the inheritance?? I know I would. Ain’t no one forcing me into no sham marriage.
Why forfeit it? The guy is taking it to court, so that the court in NY will say such clauses are unconstitutional. Just another nail in the coffin of discrimination in NY state.
What has the constitution got to do with it?
It may be unjust and morally contemptible, but it is perfectly legal.
This is a completely private matter. Either get married or walk away.
The will doesn’t force him to do anything. It requires him to get married to a woman, he can after all choose not to and just let it go.
Money is a horrible influence on people. This guy just needs to let it go, and maintain his dignity.
Strange no-one seems to be considered that he is already married, and would have to divorce his husband to marry the mother of his child.
Surely a will requiring someone to divirce would be deemed inadmissable…
Hmm. Quite a nasty thing for Grampa to do.
Personally I’d start a new trust fund for my child, then when nobody was looking go show the old man what I think of him by doing a massive poo on his grave :-)
Something does not quite add up here.
If Mandelbaum and O’Donnell were married in 2011 then their son, Cooper, who was 16 months old at the time was born in 2009 at the earliest.
Yet his father died in 2007. If the father died before the child was even conceived then how could he have made this stipulation in his will?
Maybe he left stipulation that should there be any offspring he should be married to aforesaid mother.
The stipulation appears to apply to any and all grandchildren as the story states the money is in trust for the “three grandchildren’. Mandelbaum senior could not have left it in trust for the three because he would have no knowledge of Cooper.