Estate Case (Nazareth) 19103-02-20 Anonymous vs. Anonymous - part 6

He later testified that the deceased "wanted to rest her conscience in connection with the son's widow because she took the trouble to raise her daughters" (Q.  20-21).

1. P.  also testified regarding the circumstances of making the will that:

"When he came, I remember exactly what she said, 'Bring Diab and I just want to write for a moment...  She told me that he would come to Diab and that she wanted to write to the daughters of....  And her sister, because she educated and raised the girls, that's why she wants to give their half.  It bothers me that I say this, but that's what happened, I'm sorry that's what I'm saying.  I can't lie to my God, my mother insisted on calling Diab my mother, she asked me to bring Diab to give the girls' half" (p.  11, 17-23).

She later added that the deceased told the notary: "She wanted to look to God and my mother called me to say that she wanted to give the widow's half to her daughters" (p.  13, s.  8).

1. The testimony of the notary and P.  about the circumstances of the drafting of the will is consistent and faithfully reflects the subjective situation of the deceased as it reflected to them.
2. Objectively, even though the deceased was not necessarily in a state of mortal danger, from a legal perspective the deceased was in a state of unwell-being, if we look at the full picture of the deterioration in her condition and the proximity of the time between the drafting of the will and death.  The deceased's medical condition deteriorated a few hours after the oral will was recited and she was rushed to a hospital in Nazareth at 8:00 p.m., about seven hours later, and from there she was transferred to Rambam Hospital and died about three days later.
3. In light of this, I rule that the deceased was indeed in a state of "seeing herself face to death" on June 6, 2019, when she made her will.

1. The Conclusion of the Mitzvah's Opinion

1. From the testimony of the notary and daughter P., from the memorandum and the notice of an oral will submitted to the Registrar, it appears that the deceased explained her motives for changing her previous will by saying that she wanted to reward her son's widow for raising her granddaughters and that she wanted to retire from the world with a clear conscience.
2. The deceased gave the notary public precise instructions to change the division of rights in the plot she owned, instead of 1/48 of each of the daughters and the two granddaughters combined, and ordered to give half to the granddaughters and their mother and the remaining half to her three daughters.

The deceased also ordered that in the event of a relinquishment by P.  of her share, her shares should be transferred to her children, and she ordered that the family home be transferred to her other son.

1. P.  testified that the deceased insisted on summoning the notary, and even though she herself did not agree with the deceased about changing the will, she acted according to the deceased's wishes:

"Q.  And that's how you actually sign an affidavit that it's true?

1. Yes. I was put in a corner, I don't want this thing, but that's what my mother wanted.  She told me and I did what she asked me to do.
2. And you asked Adv. Diab?
3. He went home. He wrote what my mother asked for and went home.
4. Do you know what your mother told him to write exactly?
5. My mother asked me by force to bring Attorney Diab because she wanted to be quiet that she would die because the girls grew up alone.
6. What did you hear your mother say to Adv. Diab, what did they say?
7. The conversation between them that she wanted to give to the daughters of ... That he had passed away.  It was her last day."

(p.  13, paras.  12-21).

1. The notary testified that he spoke with the deceased before she said the words of the will in order to clarify her mental state (p.  5, s.  22).  The deceased remembered that she had made the original will with him (pp.  5, 10-11) and sat comfortably on the chair in the living room and spoke normally (s.  20).
2. The notary explained that he did not invite a doctor to verify the deceased's legal capacity because he was required to have a preliminary conversation with her in order to determine her clarity and free will (pp.  5, 26-31).  The notary testified that the matter of filing the application for probate of the will orally was raised by him when he saw that there were conditions for the execution of a will of a deceased person (pp.  8, paras.  17-19).

61. The deceased's discretion is also learned from the testimony of the applicant who said that she visited the deceased when she was at Rambam Hospital, and she was conscious and spoke to her and told her that she loved her and changed her will (pp. 21, 24-34 of the transcript).
62. The objectors themselves admitted in their interrogation that if their brother (the applicants' father) had been alive, they would not have objected to the deceased granting him half of the plot (pp. 16, 16-18 and 20, 21-24).

1. In our case, in light of the totality, I am persuaded of the deceased's will and determination that her words would constitute a will.

VII.     P.'s involvement in the drafting of the will

1. P., the daughter of the deceased, said at the beginning of her testimony that she began to suffer from Alzheimer's disease and that she had been taking medication for a year or two in order to cope with the disease (pp.  10, 11-17).  Despite her condition, counsel for the opposing women chose to investigate her, and her testimony turned out to be essential to uncovering the truth.  The witness did not remember any minor details, but she remembered the core of her version as presented in the affidavit and in the notice of an oral will that was submitted to the Registrar and repeated it in her testimony.
2. P.'s testimony was reliable and reliable.  She did not change her version and even testified against her interests, since in an oral will her rights are reduced in part from what the deceased had bequeathed to her in the previous will.
3. The opponents argued that P.  could not be a witness to the oral will because she was a beneficiary in the will and because of her involvement in the drafting of the will.

This argument is rejected by me because it is contrary to the law and case law.

1. According to Section 35 of the Inheritance Law, "a provision of a will, other than an oral will, which entitles the person who drafted it or witnessed its making or otherwise took part in its drafting, and a provision of a will that entitles the spouse of one of the above, is void." An oral will is excluded from the provision of section 35 of the law, and it is not for nothing that in many cases an oral will is made by the testator in front of close family members who can benefit from the will.
2. As for the claim that the will was invalidated due to the fact that P.  summoned the notary public and told him that the deceased was interested in changing the will, it has no basis, given the fact that P.  testified that she was asked by the deceased to do so and that her testimony was reliable and reliable.  The case law held that the execution of a mission on behalf of the testator, who requested that an attorney go to him for the purpose of making the will, does not constitute part of the drafting of the will (Civil Appeal 576/72 Shafir v.  Shafir, IsrSC 27 (2) 373, Civil Appeal 851/79 Bandel v.  Bandel, IsrSC 35 (3) 101).
3. In addition, the notary contradicted the objections' argument that the will reflects the will of P.  and not the will of the deceased.  The notary emphasized that he had only heard the deceased's words and that P.  did not intervene in the conversation:

"P.  heard it all.  P.  did not tell me what to write, I heard from her what she wanted" (p.  4, s.  5).