Estate Case (Tel Aviv) 18696-07-20 Anonymous v. Anonymous

Was defendant 1 the 'common-law partner' of the deceased and therefore entitled to inherit her according to the law? This is the question at the basis of this judgment.

[The names in the judgment are pseudonyms]

A . The facts that are relevant to the matter:

1. The deceased, who never married and had no children, died in January 2019 without leaving behind a will. The deceased's parents had four other children besides her, and they are: defendant 2 (hereinafter also: Anonymous), the plaintiff's husband (hereinafter also: Anonymous), defendant 3 (hereinafter also: Anonymous) and the mother of defendants 4-6 (hereinafter also: Anonymous).
2. In May 2020, Yaakov applied to the Inheritance Registrar for an inheritance order for his deceased sister's estate (Estate Case 18696-07-20). In his application, Yaakov declared that the deceased's heirs were the surviving brothers of the deceased and that her nephews, descendants of a certain woman, who died before the deceased's death, were defendants 4-6 (hereinafter: the deceased's nephews).  Yaakov also declared that "the testator did not have a spouse at the time of his death."  Defendant 1 (hereinafter: the man) filed an objection to the application for an inheritance order in the estate case 18088-07-20, declaring that he was the spouse of the deceased, with whom he had lived for more than 20 years until her death.  As a result of this statement, the man petitioned "to determine the shares of the heirs in the deceased's inheritance according to the law, taking into account the objector's status as a common-law partner and taking into account the fact that he lived with the deceased in the apartment" (paragraph 5 of the objection).
3. On February 25, 2021, Yaakov passed away and notice of this was submitted to the court, at which time the parties were given time to submit their position regarding the continuation of the proceeding. On April 21, 2021, the first hearing of the claims was held, in which it was clarified that an order had not yet been issued to execute Yaakov's will.  It was also stated at the same hearing by a person's counsel that his client had no claims in connection with the objection and that "she has no position on the results.  Whatever the results may be" (p. 3, paras. 28-31 of Prot.; such).  On October 19, 2021, the man's counsel notified the filing of the motion and the objection to the deceased's nephews (defendants 4 and 6) who announced that they had no interest in the proceeding.  With regard to the other nephew, defendant 5, it was claimed that the pleadings and the invitation to the hearing were served on him by courier on October 19, 2021, whose affidavit was submitted to the file.
4. At the beginning of the hearing on November 1, 2021, and with the consent of the parties, a decision was made on the exchange of parties, so that Yaakov's place as plaintiff was replaced by a certain woman, his wife and his sole heir, according to his will, which was ordered to be executed on May 19, 2021 (see p. 4, paras. 1-15 of Prot. It follows, therefore, that the proceeding before me is conducted between the plaintiff and the man, with the other parties, whether they have announced a lack of interest in its outcome or have chosen not to take part in it.
5. And now let's go back in time to 1998, when in the framework of a legal proceeding between the deceased and her brother (apparently in the matter of their mother's apartment), an affidavit was submitted to this court file by: so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so – who, as mentioned, was the one who requested the inheritance order and stated the aforementioned – in which the three declared that: "Contrary to [the deceased's] claim, we reject the claim that [the deceased] lived in the apartment that is the subject of the lawsuit... Since 1993, [the deceased] has lived in an apartment she owns on ...  In Ramat Gan...  I [Yaakov] even declare that about three years ago [the deceased] approached me to help me change the locks in her apartment on the street...  In Ramat Gan due to burglary attempts.  She lived in this apartment together with her common-law partner [the man]..." (see paragraphs  2-3 of their affidavit of November 22, 1998 in family file 67980/98; Appendix C to the file Exhibits by the Man; emphases not original).  As such, in my decision of June 1, 2021, I ordered the reversal of the burden of proof (see p. 6 of the transcript).
6. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 An affidavit was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff by Shalom, Yaakov's son. The witness's affidavit has 5 sections, in which it is recorded: "This affidavit was made in accordance with the court's decision...  I am the son of the late Yaakov z"l...  I hereby announce my objection to the objection of the claimant [the man] to the inheritance order that was filed on behalf of the deceased, and I explain that I do not recognize [the man] as a common-law partner of the deceased and is not entitled to receive a share in the estate by virtue of section 55 ofthe Inheritance Law.  The deceased's father, in the framework of the case, gave a response and an affidavit in which he also denies that [the man] is a common-law partner of the deceased.  Attached as an appendix.  This is my name, my signature and the content of my affidavits of truth."

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

7. The man submitted an affidavit on his behalf, another from the deceased's brother, So-and-so, and two other affidavits from So-and-so's sons.
8. At the hearing on November 1, 2021, the man's counsel announced that he did not intend to cross-examine the only witness on behalf of the prosecution, claiming that it was hearsay testimony without the witness's personal knowledge. As such, only the man and his witnesses were heard at the hearing, and towards the end of the hearing, an order for written summaries was issued.  Since their questions were filed, this judgment was given.

B . The main arguments of the parties:

9. As stated, the plaintiff did not declare anything from her own mouth, and in fact, in the entire file there are three affidavits from the prosecution, and these are: the first – the affidavit of the late Yaakov in support of his request for an inheritance order; the second – the affidavit of the late Yaakov in response to the man's objection of September 7, 2020 (hereinafter: the response); the third – the affidavit of Shalom, the son of the late Yaakov.
10. With all due respect, I find it difficult to see any value or weight in Scholem's affidavit, since as quoted above, the witness refrained from testifying a quarter of a word from his own mouth, but referred to another affidavit of his father, Yaakov. The witness's affidavit can be summarized in the sentence quoted from him: "... I do not recognize [the man] being a common-law partner of the deceased" (see above), with all due respect, this is not testimony as to the matter at hand, but at most, a kind of declaration of the witness's state of mind.  The witness was expected to explain even a little of what he knew about the deceased's life, the circumstances of her residence with the man, or anything else that could teach him about the matter in question, but this was not done.
11. It follows, therefore, that we are left with two main statements of arguments, which are also supported by Yaakov's declarations, the summary of which will be given below:
12. At the time of the deceased's death, she had no spouse;
13. The deceased was a religious woman who, despite her legal knowledge, chose not to make a will "because she wished to bequeath her property according to the laws of inheritance" (see paragraph 2 of the response);

• When the deceased was asked whether the man was her partner, "... She would answer decisively and intuitively, "Why?" when one of the reasons was that she would never live in sin..." (see paragraph 10 of the response);

1. "It should be emphasized that at no stage did the applicant [Yaakov-Y.S .]  imagine that the objector was the spouse of the deceased, and certainly not the common-law partner.  On the contrary, it was known to everyone that the deceased had no spouse and that the objector was nothing more than an acquaintance" (see paragraph 18 of the response; emphases added);
2. It was copied from Nevobetween the deceased and the man that there was no partnership, they did not have a joint account, they did not go out together and they did not run a joint household (see paragraphs 25 and 42 of the response).
3. As such, the conditions required in section 55 of the Inheritance Law are not met and no one has any right to inherit the deceased.
4. The man's main arguments are as follows:
5. Yaakov's application for an inheritance order while declaring that the deceased did not have a spouse during her lifetime, constitutes a bad faith attempt to steal the man's rights, all the more so, "when [Yaakov] knew very well that I was the deceased's common-law partner. It is not clear to me how he dared to claim otherwise, while misleading the honorable Registrar of Inheritance" (see paragraph 2 of his affidavit);
6. The man lived with the deceased from 1997 until her death as a couple for all intents and purposes. He said: "We lived a family life together, a life of love and sharing.  We shared a double bed and a shared room and have been taking care of each other ever since...  The family of the deceased knew very well that I was her partner...  We traveled together throughout the country, we went together to various events..." (see paragraph 9 of his affidavit);

• So-and-so, the deceased's brother, used to visit the couple on a daily basis and he (So-and-so) and his children were the only family members with whom the couple were in contact (see paragraph 15 of his affidavit);

1. "After the deceased's death, a draft of a will was found in her home that was printed on a typewriter that she had. The draft will is not signed.  However, she bequeathed me three-quarters of her property.  In addition, she notes...  Because I deserve a pension...  "By virtue of his being my partner"...  The deceased wrote very harsh things about her brothers, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so" (see paragraph 22 of his affidavit);
2. Since all the conditions of the law have been fulfilled, the man inherits the estate of the deceased.

3 - Discussion: