Plaintiff 2: A few days passed and then we knew.
The Honorable H. S. R. Gurevich: It's been a few days since you received the money and then you knew about it?
Plaintiff 2: No, we'll do the math, I have to concentrate, it's been two weeks since I got the money and they found out about it quite officially.
The Honorable H. S. R. Gurevich: What did they officially discover about the gift agreement?
Plaintiff 2: Yes, the foreign worker started talking about the fact that there was an agreement and she saw the page, and that's it, beyond that I can't rely on rumors."
- At the end of his testimony, plaintiff 2 admits that after he learned of the gift agreement, retrospectively about two weeks after it was drafted, he told his sisters about it. Plaintiff 1 took the baton and consulted with the lawyers only after the deceased father died (p. 47, paras. 14-29).
- Plaintiff 2 also corroborated the defendant's testimony that she offered plaintiffs 3 and 4 to cover the debt together and divide the house (pp. 44, 20-24).
"Adv. M. Baram: Okay, who actually initiated the payment of my father's debt?
Plaintiff 2: The defendant, at first the defendant came, she suggested to plaintiff 1, plaintiff 3 and plaintiff 4 that we make a division, you will pay a portion and we will divide the house between us, she said this to me many times on the phone as well, let's divide let's do it, to say that she is taking it alone I was not sure, later it was discovered".
- Plaintiff 1 confirmed that she was the living spirit behind the lawsuit and persuaded the other plaintiffs to join (pp. 63, 23-29).
- At first, she adhered to her version that until the deceased's death she did not know about the gift agreement (M. 64, 31-34) and even to the court's question: "But plaintiff 2 didn't tell you?" and claimed that she was not in contact with her brother (p. 65, s. 1). Later in her testimony, she already confirms that she knew about the transfer of the house around 2015-2017 (pp. 66, 4-15), and to a court question she admitted that she knew about it between the years 2016-2017 (pp. 70, 24-25).
- She also admitted that in 2013 the defendant approached her and offered her to prepare a sum of ILS 27,000 for the purpose of purchasing the apartment jointly. Plaintiff 1 was even asked whether she contacted the defendant and tried to transfer to her the sum of ILS 27,000 that was offered to her as a contribution to the deceased's debt, to which she replied: "I waited for the right date... When she says" (pp. 68, 17-19 and p. 74, 23-24).
- She was asked why she didn't act to cancel the agreement or enforce the offer that was offered to her, "How long did you wait patiently, a month, two months, a week, two years?" and she replied, "It just melted away. It disappeared" (p. 69, s. 24). She also admitted that she knew "in the background of things" that the apartment was registered in the name of the defendants (p. 74, s. 1)..."Again I repeat that the defendant came to me and told me that ----- called his parents and cursed, it was some kind of trigger to say, when exactly I don't know it was so long ago, I really have no idea, the only place I got the penny that the house passed was when I came and they put a family sign ... That's it" (p. 81, paras. 6-11). But no action was taken on her part: "I came to ask my father, I had no one to talk to" (p. 91, 26).
- Plaintiff No. 3 stated in paragraph 23 of the affidavit that she learned of the transfer of rights "about a week after the defendant and the defendant signed the transfer of the house for their benefit", but when she was questioned about it, she retracted her statement and said, "False, I did not say such a thing, I found out about the shiva, I don't know who wrote it, I didn't write it" (p. 90, paras. 12-17):
- Later in the interrogation, she testified that the defendant offered all the sisters to participate in covering the deceased's debt to plaintiff 2:
"Honorable Judge, the defendant came and told us to prepare money and we would buy the house together, after a week she called me and said, 'Look, me and the defendant... We decided we shouldn't deal with it at all, she's a sick girl, why do I have to take it for myself, why I need the problems, and then they went behind their backs and did the whole story, it's true that they asked us, I'm not going to lie." (p. 92, paras. 22-26). Plaintiff No. 3 was asked why this incident was not mentioned in the affidavit, and then she changed the version in such a way that the arrangement for participation in the payment of the debt was not proposed, but rather the conversation was with plaintiff No. 4 and there was nothing final (pp. 90, 12-17).
- Plaintiff No. 3 attached to the affidavit a transcript of a recording of a conversation between her father and a nephew, which revealed her knowledge of the transfer of the house as a gift to the defendants while her father was still alive, her attempts to create a dispute between the father and the defendants, to create fears of them lest he be poisoned or stolen from him, and to incite and dissuade the father to cancel the gift agreement. Although the transcript shows that the father had claims against the defendants and that he examined the legal ways to cancel the gift, at no point was his ability to choose was denied, and despite everything, he did not act to cancel it.
"The deceased: She (the defendant) went to issue a restraining order... From home... She wants the whole house. She doesn't want this house to belong to the heart.A... I can open it to a synagogue... I got good advice, I'm going to renew a new will, and then...