"The Honorable Judge R. Gurevich: Since then, the neglect has not only been of the defendants, but the neglect has been of all of you as his children.
The Witness: I said that I helped him as much as I could because I have a life and I am married and I also tried to build my life, I did what I could, beyond that he was a very, very unusual person, it was also impossible to help him because he wouldn't let them help him." (Q. 19-24).
- Plaintiff No. 4 testified that the defendant did not come to the deceased's house, and asked for her help:
"The defendant would not have come to him, she would have sent me, take him to the hospital, take him here, take him there with a friend of mine" (pp. 52, 31-33).
However, she confirmed that she had "a full stomach for her father who hurt her and her mother, and when confronted with the question of why he would give her the house as a gift, she replied:
"The witness: Because I used to live there.
Adv. D. Gilad: You lived there, he threw you out of the house, didn't he?
The Witness: Where am I going to be on the street?" (p. 62, paras. 1-12).
- Plaintiff No. 2 testified about severe violence on the part of the deceased father and even described physical injuries (pp. 31, 3-6): "He would take a burner and burn my hands and legs, until now I have signs of dryness it never goes away, there is trauma like this, it's like that, everything with tremors in my hands and things like that, really very crazy violence."
Plaintiff 2 testified that at first the deceased wanted to bequeath the house to him, later there were arguments between them. Plaintiff No. 2 understood that the deceased did not intend to transfer or bequeath the house to him, so he decided to sue his father in order to receive the money he had paid to Amigur for the house, and even gave an order to cancel the mortgage payment, and the deceased feared that he would be thrown out of his house as a result. As he put it: "As soon as he decides that he doesn't want to give me the house, then I also have the right to cancel the payments, I can't pay for something I won't get." (p. 39, paras. 3-5). In the course of the evidentiary hearing in the lawsuit he filed against the deceased in family file 21680/07, the deceased recounted in his cross-examination how plaintiff 2 made his life miserable, took advantage of him, and even beat his wife and him and broke his rib (transcript of January 12, 2011, pp. 16, 17).
- The defendants' testimonies are harsh and chilling, explaining the distance between them and their father, and the reason why the deceased chose to put his trust in his defendant's home after he feared that he might be thrown out of his home following proceedings taken against him by plaintiff No.
The circumstances of drafting the agreement
- Attorney ----- testified in his main interrogation (transcript of November 20, 2024, pp. 142-147) that he represented plaintiff 2 in a number of lawsuits, as well as in 2011 in the financial claim he filed against the deceased for a financial debt, which ended in a settlement agreement whereby the deceased would pay plaintiff 2 ILS 95,000 and in return he would cancel the warning note that was registered in his favor on the deceased's home.
- After the deceased did not honor the settlement agreement, the attorney, in accordance with the instruction of plaintiff No. 2, opened an execution case against the deceased.
- He went on to testify that in 2013 plaintiff No. 2 and the deceased appeared at his home and shared with him that they had reached an arrangement with the defendant according to which she would cover the deceased's debt in the sum of ILS 110,000 and after the debt was closed, plaintiff No. 2 would cancel the warning note, and once the house was free of Ahara's note, the deceased would transfer the house as a gift to the defendants.
- Attorney ------ called the defendant and she confirmed to him the correctness of the agreement between the parties, and asked to add a clause according to which plaintiff 2 would not harass his father, his daughter B.A and the caregiver.
- Attorney -------prepared two agreements on May 30, 2013 - the first between the defendant and the plaintiff according to which in exchange for covering the debt in the execution office, plaintiff 2 would cancel the warning note. The second is a gift agreement between the deceased and the defendants in which he transfers his home to them.
- Indeed, the defendant deposited ------- attorney with a check for ILS 30,000 and 72 deferred checks, and plaintiff 2 signed the cancellation of the warning note. After the warning note was canceled, Attorney ------ transferred to plaintiff 2 the checks that had been deposited with him in trust and registered the gift agreement at the Land Registrar's Office.
- Attorney ------ testified that he spoke with the deceased to see if he was even fit and received an explanation from the deceased as to the reason for transferring the house to the defendants - "because he trusted them, he had a disabled daughter, he would take care of her all the time, it was important to him that after his death and in general, the defendant would continue to care for the daughter and also allow him to live in the house until the end of his life" (p. 148, paras. 1-9).
- Attorney ------ confirmed that he did not know the defendants before the agreement was drawn up (p. 148, paras. 10-12).
He further confirmed that the purpose of the gift agreement was that plaintiff 2, whom he represents, would receive his money (17-19).
- In his cross-examination, counsel for the plaintiffs tried to cast aspersions on Attorney ------ as someone who did not take care of the interest of plaintiff No. 2 in representing him when he canceled the civil appeal in favor of his client on the day he signed the gift agreement with the defendants, when the 72 checks spread over six years had not yet been cashed and closed the execution file (pp. 156, 27-33). Attorney ------ replied that he had acted in accordance with the agreement and that the checks could be submitted to the Execution Office (pp. 158, paras. 3-4). In this regard, I will note that even if ------ attorney did not act with full responsibility, and I do not express an opinion on this matter, this still does not detract from the validity of the agreements when in the test of the result the checks were paid.
- The insinuation that plaintiff No. 2 was supposedly limited in his level of understanding was also denied by ----- attorney who knew him well and handled all of his claims, and if there had been any concern of intellectual disability, he would not have made the agreement: "I didn't explain everything to him. He understood, we sat in good spirits. I explained to him that I had also known him for many years, I had represented him in many lawsuits. I didn't, I didn't see that he was...")p. 161, paras. 26-27). and explained that plaintiff No. 2 asked him to draw up the agreement because he needed the money urgently (p. 169, paras. 29-31). It should be noted that even if plaintiff No. 2 is of low intelligence, no medical documentation was produced about it, and this matter did not even come up in all the legal proceedings he conducted, including the deceased.
He later explicitly rejected this claim: "I did not dispute this, I have represented ------ for many years in lawsuits. He had tort claims and other traffic claims, come on, he was as sharp as a razor, what can I tell you, more than that? That's what I was impressed with, I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not anything. But what, my impression is different from that of my own fairness, I wouldn't have made any agreement if I thought that someone, if I was afraid that someone was borderline, I wouldn't have made an agreement, I've had cases like this already." (p. 170, paras. 17-23).
- Attorney ----- was also asked why he agreed to insert a clause in the agreement preventing plaintiff No. 2 from getting close to the deceased, and he replied: "They agreed to it between them, he wanted to receive the money and he felt that he had the money. It was important for him to receive money, it was important to him here" (p. 162, paras. 26-27).
- With regard to the deceased's fitness to sign a gift agreement, we were asked how the deceased could have signed mentally when he had to undergo a nephrectomy on the day the agreements were signed, which was canceled a week earlier due to his poor condition, and later it was claimed that he was under tranquilizers.
Attorney ----- claimed in his testimony that he did not know about his medical condition, and the deceased and plaintiff 2 both came to his home and he testified about his personal impression of the deceased: