The witness, Attorney ------: Right.
The Honorable Judge Gurevich: You wrote that it would be canceled. It's really significant.
The witness, Attorney ------: What is A-, that's what I'm saying. It just shows that he told me these things. It just means that I couldn't write it."
- 125, paras. 8-18).
- Her testimony indicates that "out of the mold" clauses were added to the will that were added based on things the deceased said to her, such as "section 3 regarding the daughter with special needs and who took care of her and who did not" (p. 124, 22-24), section 4 that the will approves the transfer agreement if it is revoked (p. 125, 9-16) and section 8 "who drafted the will after consulting with a lawyer" (p. 128, 4-5, 11-17).
- -------'s testimony, which left a reliable and professional impression, strengthens the conclusion that the will was made on the basis of the deceased's free will, out of independent discretion and a full understanding of its meaning.
- Although the defendants did not seek to execute the will, it was drawn up after a gift agreement and constitutes an explicit and late approval of the agreement, and therefore it strengthens, anchors and formulates the real, free and conscious will of the deceased with regard to the transfer of rights in accordance with the gift agreement.
- Afterword
- The deceased was involved in a dispute and legal proceedings with plaintiff No. 2, due to which there was a real fear of losing his head. The deceased had no financial means and was worried about the fate of his disabled daughter. The rest of his children did not take any real responsibility for the situation he found himself in. On the other hand, the defendants entered the picture where the plaintiffs kept their feet away, and bore his duties and actually assisted the deceased. Even if before 2013 none of his children were close to the deceased for reasons and from difficult childhood charges, then the deceased managed on his own, but at the moment of truth it was the defendants who came to his aid. The deceased's will was clear, consistent and cohesive, and was ratified in the last will he made 4 years after the waiting agreement. The deceased did not cancel the gift agreement despite the pressure exerted on him by his daughter, plaintiff 3, and even though he knew what legal actions were to bring about its cancellation. It was not proven that there was a defect in the legal capacity of the deceased or that he was unfairly influenced. The defendants learned of the waiting agreement in real time or shortly thereafter, but knowing their father's personality, how stubborn he was, and their opinions did not dare to act against his will during his lifetime, and filed the lawsuit only after his death, out of a sense of injustice that cannot in itself establish a legal ground.
In light of the aforesaid, I determine that no factual or legal basis has been laid for cancelling a gift transaction that ended in registration.
- In conclusion, after examining all the evidence and testimonies, I order the dismissal of the claim to cancel the gift agreement.
- Accordingly , it orders the cancellation of the injunction issued on January 23, 2020 in Family Case 48438-01-20.
- The plaintiffs will pay the defendants, jointly and severally, legal expenses and attorney's fees in the total amount of ILS 50,000 plus VAT.
- The amount will be paid within 60 days, otherwise it will bear interest and linkage in accordance with the law from the date of the judgment until the full payment is actually made.
- The secretariat will present to the parties and close the case.
Granted today, February 03, 2026, in the absence of the parties.