Wills file (Jerusalem) 13282-01-23 Anonymous v. Anonymous

Before me is a request to cancel an "inheritance order", as well as an application for a "probate order" and an objection filed against it, regarding the estate of the late Mrs . 

Overview

1. The plaintiff and the defendants (hereinafter: "the objectors") are brothers, the children of the deceased (hereinafter: "the deceased").
2. A number of legal proceedings are taking place between the parties, the matter of which will be detailed below.
3. On the 20th.*.* the deceased passed away.
4. On 20 .*.* and in light of an application filed by the Applicant, an inheritance order was issued after the deceased's estate (hereinafter: the "Inheritance Order").
5. In accordance with the inheritance order, the deceased's heirs are her children: ; *****; *****; , 25% per unit of the children.
6. Subsequently , the plaintiff filed with the Honorable Registrar of Inheritance Affairs a request to cancel an inheritance order, as well as an application for an order to execute the deceased's will, and on January 2, 2023, the Honorable Registrar forwarded the application to the court, (by virtue of section 72(b) of the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: "the Law")) as well as the application for probate of the will and the objection filed against it (by virtue of section 67A(a)(1) of the Law).
7. According to the plaintiff, on February 9, 2012, the deceased made a "will in witnesses" (hereinafter: "the will" or "the deceased's will").
8. The attorney general announced that he had no intention of interfering in the proceedings.
9. On May 16, 2023 and December 21, 2023, pre-trial hearings were held before the previous panel, the Honorable Judge Orit Ben Dor Liebel.
10. In June 2024, the pending cases between the parties were transferred to this panel.
11. On September 23, 2024, a pre-trial hearing was held. On May 21, 2025, an evidentiary hearing was held (hereinafter: the "Evidentiary Hearing").
12. On August 17, 2025, the parties submitted their written summaries.

FC 61361-05-19

13. This is a lawsuit filed by the opponents against the plaintiff and the deceased (who was alive at the time), for the cancellation of an irrevocable power of attorney and other documents that the deceased signed before it became "a waste of law", according to the opponents in 2011.
14. The essence of the claim is to cancel an "irrevocable power of attorney" (hereinafter: "irrevocable power of attorney"), which the deceased signed on May 23, 2015 before Adv. Jonathan Kuttab (hereinafter: " Kuttab"), according to which she transfers all of her rights in the land (which were stated in the statement of claim) to the plaintiff in return.
15. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 The opponents also petitioned to cancel all the documents signed by the deceased from the day they became "unlawful".

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

16. On November 9, 2022, and in the framework of a notice submitted to the (aforementioned) case by Adv. Maher Hanna (hereinafter: " Hanna"), Adv. Hanna reported that in the course of examining files in his office (in circumstances related to that proceeding), he found a copy of the deceased's will. The lawyer claimed that Hanna remembered that he and another attorney had approved the deceased's signature on the will.
17. On November 14, 2022, Adv. Hanna submitted the deceased's will to the file.

Medical opinions submitted as part of the case:

18. On May 18, 2020, Dr. Shafiq Masalha was appointed as a medical expert on behalf of the court, in order to examine the deceased's legal capacity to make decisions from 2011 onwards, and in particular at the time of signing the irrevocable power of attorney (May 23, 2015).
19. On March 28, 2021, an opinion was submitted by Dr. Masalha, and the conclusions of the opinion are that since there has been a cognitive decline in the deceased since 2009, according to the documents presented to him, and the characteristics of the disease, at the time of signing an irrevocable agreement in favor of the plaintiff, the deceased was not mentally fit to understand the meaning and content of the documents she signed.  It should be noted that since the deceased was alive at the time, Dr.  Masalha diagnosed her in an examination he conducted at her home on 15 June 2020.
20. On May 25, 2021, a hearing was held, in which the parties agreed to appoint an additional medical expert.
21. On July 11, 2021, Prof. Yoram Maaravi (it should be noted that unfortunately, a few months ago, Prof.  Maaravi passed away in tragic circumstances) was appointed to examine the deceased's legal capacity to make decisions from 2011 onwards, and in particular whether she was competent to sign the irrevocable power of attorney on May 23, 2015.
22. On December 7, 2021, Prof. Maaravi's opinion was submitted, and in the summary of the opinion, Prof.  Maaravi reached the conclusion that the deceased's competence could not be revoked on the relevant dates, and therefore she was fit to take legal action.
23. On November 23, 2022, Prof. Maaravi was interrogated, and at the beginning of his testimony, the court determined that his testimony would be used in any other proceeding, should a question arise regarding the deceased's fitness from 2011 onwards.
24. Masalha was not questioned about his opinion.

Copied from Nevo

25. On March 14, 2023, FC 61361-05-19 was suspended until a decision was rendered on the motions to cancel an inheritance order and the application for a probate order and an objection thereto (the applications that are the subject of this judgment).

The Deceased's Will

26. The plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing on the deceased's will dated February 9, 2012.
27. The will is envisaged to be a "will in witnesses" according to section 20 of the law, and was drafted in Arabic.
28. The witnesses to the will are Adv. Maher Hanna and Adv. Sunny Khoury (hereinafter: " Khoury").
29. In her will, the deceased bequeathed all of her property to the applicant.
30. In addition, in the framework of the will, the deceased appointed Adv. Kuttab and/or Adv. Bashir Issa (hereinafter: " Issa") jointly and severally or another person to be appointed, for the purpose of executing the will.

The proceedings in his case

31. In light of the "discovery" of the deceased's will, the Applicant filed a motion to cancel the inheritance order (Civil Appeal 13311-01-23).
32. The Applicant filed an application for an order to probate the deceased's will (Civil Appeal 13282-01-23). Against this request, the opponents filed an objection to the will (Civil Appeal 13340-01-23).
33. On May 16, 2023, Ms. Orit Yanai was appointed as an expert on behalf of the court for the purpose of examining the deceased's signature on the will.  On October 19, 2023, the expert opinion was submitted.  According to her, there is a reasonable possibility that the signature on the will is that of the deceased (see p.  3 of the opinion).  The expert was not interrogated and in any case the claim of forgery does not affect the judgment and therefore I will not address this issue.

The main arguments of the opponents (as they were argued in the statement of objection)

34. The signature on the will is not the signature of the deceased. Even the deceased's signature was signed under deception, pressure, oppression, deception and unfair influence, and also in a state of "waste of law" and while taking advantage of her medical distress.
35. The deceased was an Alzheimer's patient.
36. The plaintiff is a lawyer in the PA territories, took care of the deceased and lived with her, signed all kinds of documents and is currently using them, including the will.
37. Even if it turns out in one way or another that the plaintiff "obtained" the deceased's signature on the will, this does not mean that the deceased's signature was done of free will and without pressure and influence on the part of the plaintiff and her attorneys.
38. The will in question did not exist, at least until the day the application for an inheritance order was filed after the deceased's estate. In the same application, the Applicant marked the box "The deceased has no will".  In other words, the will did not exist until at least September 2020, when the application for an inheritance order was filed after the deceased.
39. In 2019, and in the framework of legal proceedings, the Applicant based claims for receipt of the deceased's property on the basis of an "irrevocable power of attorney" that she received from the deceased. From here, it can be seen that the will did not exist until 2019.
40. According to medical documents from 2009 and 2012, it can be seen that the deceased's medical condition was poor.
41. Pro-West's interrogation proved that he did not understand, and was not aware of the content of the medical reports (as the opponents put it), and therefore the opinion he submitted should be disqualified.
42. The opponents have various arguments against Attorney Kuttab and the attorney who drafted the will of the deceased, whom they accuse of fraud.

The Applicant's main arguments (as argued in response to the objection)

43. The burden of proof with regard to the objections' claims is on them.
44. The deceased was competent when she signed the will in front of Adv. Khoury and Adv. Hanna, as reflected in the will, and she signed it of her own free will, with discretion and without any pressure or deception.
45. On November 23, 2022, a decision was given in FC 61361-05-19 that the opinion and testimony of Prof. Maarbi, will serve as a basis for any other proceeding if a question arises as to the deceased's competence from 2011 onwards.  These words were also said in relation to the deceased's will (which is from 2012).
46. According to the opinion and testimony of Prof. Maaravi, the deceased's competence cannot be denied at the time of making the will or even at the time of signing the irrevocable power of attorney.
47. The allegations against Adv. Khoury and Adv. Hanna, according to which they pressured, influenced or misled the deceased and caused her to sign the will or forged the will, are "delusional", "manifestly unreasonable" and extremely serious. These are veteran and respected lawyers who are not a party to the proceeding, and there is no logic as to why they would endanger their livelihood and reputation and commit such a serious and immoral act.
48. The plaintiff was not aware of the will and therefore an application was initially filed for the issuance of an inheritance order after the deceased.
49. The plaintiff did not pay consideration to the deceased for the rights in the land that she received from the deceased in the framework of the two powers of attorney drawn up by the deceased. The rights were granted as a gift and without consideration, the wording of the power of attorney is general and standard.

Note

50. The parties raised additional arguments, but I did not find them relevant to the decision and in any case they do not change the result I reached, and therefore they were not brought in this judgment.

Discussion and Decision

• First, the judgment explains the legal source that allows for the cancellation/amendment of an inheritance order or a probate order
• The judgment then discussed the question of the timing/stage of filing the application
• Afterwards, the judgment discussed the issue of eligibility to make a will
• Immediately afterwards, the judgment discussed the question of involvement in the drafting of the will and in the process unfair influence

Normative outline