Adv. Bar: Both, so how much of the second million shekels for wages and social care and how much for my mother?
Witness Mrs. A. Milstein: First of all, I will correct it, first of all I said that the account is opened as a joint account, not only for my mother and not only for mine, for our current expenses and among other things to ensure the payments that were not made for future accounting at the age of 120.
(pp. 1-3)
- The plaintiff did not know for what purpose she had withdrawn money from the account. According to the plaintiff, these funds in the joint account were intended for her social rights, but she also did not give details of how much of that money was paid for these rights and how much was used for the defendant's current expenses, and these provisions were not written at all in the power of attorney (hereinafter: the instruction document or the power of attorney):
(Appendix 6 to the plaintiff's affidavit)
The plaintiff was unable to provide an explanation as to why these instructions were not written in the above document:
Adv. Bar: There is no trace here of what you say that the money will be transferred to the joint account for your social rights.
Witness Mrs. A. Milstein: I said, here there is an anchor to the sums that I am entitled to and my status as an employee, and the account was opened according to my mother's decision, according to my mother's wishes, among other things, to ensure the implementation of the things that were also written in the instruction agreement.
- Moreover, there is no congruence between the sum of ILS 15,000 written in the instruction document and the sum she received every month.
- The guardian attached bank statements of the defendant and the plaintiff (P/4) as well as a summary of account expenses (without withdrawals and transfers of low values) attesting to the fact that the plaintiff spent large sums of money without explanation (P/3).
- The plaintiff conducted herself as if she were in a "business", had complete autonomy to handle the assets and it was not proven that anyone interfered in her actions.
- It should be noted that the title of the document does indeed state that this is an irrevocable power of attorney, but an irrevocable power of attorney to secure the rights of a third party is usually accepted in real estate transactions. An irrevocable power of attorney does not expire even upon the death of the proxy (unlike a regular power of attorney), but here it is not an irrevocable power of attorney, since the proxy (the plaintiff) is the beneficiary of it. An irrevocable power of attorney that is not given in favor of a third party is not considered an irrevocable power of attorney:
Beyond what is required, it should be noted that the provision of section 14(b) of the Shlichut Law does not apply in our case. This provision qualifies what is stipulated in section 14(a) and states that the mission will not be terminated in the ways enumerated in section 14(a) if the authorization has been given to secure the right of another person or of the agent himself, and their right depends on the performance of the mission subject. In our case, the power of attorney did not guarantee the right of a particular third person (even though its title is "irrevocable power of attorney") nor the right of Adv. Biram, and therefore, the exception to section 14(a) does not apply here.