(p. 197, paras. 7-14).
- The defendants' testimony was orderly and consistent, consistent with each other, and provided answers to all the questions asked in their cross-examination. The defendant's version is consistent with the documents, the evidence and the testimony of ----- attorneys, and I prefer her version over the plaintiffs' version.
C-5 The last will of the deceased
- The gift agreement was ratified in a witness will made by the deceased on January 8, 2017, in which he bequeathed all of his property to the defendants. This will was not executed.
It should be noted that it was preceded by a written will of the deceased dated May 30, 2013 (Appendix 4 to the defendant's affidavit) in which he bequeathed all of his property to the defendant.
- In paragraph 3 of the last will, the deceased explains that he bequeathed his property to the defendants because of the help they gave him and his daughter B.A. And due to the pressure exerted by plaintiff No. 3, he must cancel the transfer of the house to the defendants: "Since I had a confidential daughter named B.The late A. lived with me and I took care of her, even with the help of a maid, and since the defendant and her defendant husband helped me take care ofB.A. And even now they continue to support me and help me, the defendant helps me with bathing and shopping and the trips are not sick, I decided to write this will."
All my other children don't take care of me and they never invited me to Shabbat or holiday and they didn't take me to the hospital, so I choose not to bequeath anything to them.
Prior to making the will, I transferred the apartment to my daughter and her husband, and since my daughter, plaintiff 3, wishes to cancel the transfer, I am making this will for the sake of caution."
- Attorney ------- who drafted the will and also signed as a probate witness, testified that she was not impressed by any sign of influence or coercion on the deceased by any party. Regarding the deceased's competence to make a will, she replied, "I have a doubt, it is easy that I do not make a will" (Prot. of November 20, 2024, p. 112, paras. 28-32).
- According to her, she acted according to a fixed pattern of action in which she acts, of her impression of a normal cognitive state as a condition for making a will, and if she had been under a different impression, she would have required a medical certificate (pp. 123, paras. 20-27).
- The attorney confronted the argument that on January 1, 2017, seven days before the will was drafted, the deceased went to the emergency room due to a general unpleasant feeling and a rapid heartbeat, received a pill and was discharged the same day:
A: And I make wills when I am impressed by the person's cognitive state and not by his physical state. The person can also be a cancer patient and God forbid with the expectation of dying in another 24 hours, still, if he is cognitively fit. So if he has heart problems or has cancer, God forbid, I will still make the will. And again, if I knew about some health problem, related to cognition, or if I had the impression of a conversation with him, which was incoherent, I would ask him for a medical document" (p. 123, paras. 20-27)