## Facts

- David Shapira, M.D., died in Ohio in 1973, leaving a will that divided the residue of his estate equally among his three children, subject to stated conditions.
- The will conditioned Daniel Jacob Shapira’s share on his being married at the testator’s death, or marrying within seven years after death, to “a Jewish girl whose both parents were Jewish.”
- If Daniel failed to satisfy the condition within seven years (including marrying a non-Jewish woman), Daniel’s share would pass to the State of Israel.
- Union National Bank was named executor and was directed to hold Daniel’s share during the seven-year period pending satisfaction of the condition.
- Daniel, age 21 and unmarried, filed an action seeking declaratory relief and construction of the will, arguing the condition was unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, and unreasonable.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcement of the marriage condition violates the federal or state constitutions by impermissibly burdening the right to marry.
2. Whether the condition is an invalid restraint on marriage or otherwise void as contrary to public policy.
3. Whether the condition is so unreasonable, oppressive, or indefinite that it is unenforceable.

## Decision

- The court upheld the condition and denied Daniel relief, enforcing the will as written.
- The court held there was no constitutional violation because the condition was a private donative restriction and did not constitute state action.
- The court characterized the clause as a partial restraint on marriage and held it valid because it imposed reasonable restrictions.
- The court found the condition sufficiently definite and administratively workable, and the seven-year period a reasonable time to comply.
- Judgment favored enforcement of the conditional bequest, with the gift-over to the State of Israel effective upon noncompliance.

## Legal Principles

- A testator has broad freedom to dispose of property, including the power to disinherit children, subject to limits of illegality and clear public-policy violations.
- The Fourteenth Amendment restricts state action; probate enforcement of a private will does not, without more, convert a donative condition into unconstitutional state-imposed interference with marriage.
- There is no constitutional right to inherit; a condition that affects receipt of a bequest is analyzed as a restriction on inheritance rather than a direct prohibition on marriage.
- Total restraints on marriage are generally void; partial restraints may be enforced if reasonable in scope and effect.
- Reasonableness of a marriage-related condition may turn on factors including a defined compliance period, clarity of the condition, and whether the restriction effectively precludes marriage.

## Conclusion

The probate court enforced the will’s religion-based marriage condition, holding it was a reasonable partial restraint tied to inheritance, did not implicate unconstitutional state action, and was neither vague nor contrary to public policy.


Shapira v. Union Nat’l Bank, 315 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1974)