Estate Case (Nazareth) 19103-02-20 Anonymous vs. Anonymous - part 7

"Q.  Tell me that you spoke alone with ...  And P.  wasn't there, she was standing next to you and fixing something, didn't she intervene at all?

1. She didn't interfere at all, I swear to my children, she didn't interfere and I don't care about them at all. I'm far from those two sides.
2. Z.A. 80 only heard and nothing else is true?
3. She heard and did not interfere with what her mother said." (pp. 8, 5-10).

VIII.    A gift during the deceased's lifetime

1. The objectors argued in their summaries that the deceased gave as a gift the plot of land for which she bequeathed, and therefore her will has no effect with respect to an asset that is no longer included in the estate.
2. However, the objectors argued the exact opposite in the statement of objection and in the testimony of objector 1, that the gift was in fact not carried out, in the absence of the consent of the Applicant's sister to sign the gift agreement on the grounds that she was entitled to more (more than 1/8) and since P.  retracted her offer to give up half of her share in favor of the Applicant and her sister (pp.  16, 32-34).  In addition, the parties did not report the gift to the tax authorities and no power of attorney was signed, as appears from the testimony of Objector 1 (p.  17, Q.  1).
3. The deceased also did not share with the notary public about the attempt to transfer the plot as a gift (see the notary's testimony at p.  7, s.  1) and asked to order the plot to be made by saying the words of her will orally.
4. From the aforesaid, it appears that at the end of the day, no gift agreement was signed, and this argument does not constitute a reason for the cancellation of the oral will.

1. Afterword

1. From all the evidence, the expert's determinations and the testimonies of the probate witnesses, it appears that the opponents' version with regard to her medical condition was refuted and that the deceased's lack of fitness preceded in the recitation of the will orally, and it was also clarified that they do not contain any objections justifying the non-fulfillment of the testator's words as a will of a deceased person.
2.  It has been proven that the oral will meets all the requirements of section 23 of the Inheritance Law (the objectors abandoned some of their arguments in this regard in their summaries, and with regard to the rest, they were argued from the threshing floor and the winery in contravention of law and halakha).
3. The interrogation of the objectors shows that they feel that they have been treated unjustly, in the sense that the deceased lived in the home of Objector 2 and that they were the ones who cared for her most of the time, and therefore in their opinion it is more likely that if the deceased had wished to change the will, she would have benefited them at the expense of the share of other beneficiaries (Minagdat 1, pp.  16, 20-31, and Migdath 2, pp.  20, S.  1-4).
4. However, despite their proximity to the deceased, objector 1 did not have an explanation as to why the deceased did not share with her her desire to change the previous will, and she would like to do so under the pressure exerted on her by P.  and the applicant (pp.  21, 9-11), although it is not clear how the applicant could have pressured the deceased since she did not visit her and did not help in her treatment (pp.  21, 14-19).
5. A great rule is that "in the law of wills" the will of the deceased must be respected, provided that it is "his true will, his independent will, the free will of the testator, for only a real, independent and free will is the will of the testator, and where there has been a defect in the will of the deceased, we are commanded not to divide his property according to the words of the written will" (Civil Appeal 5185/83 Appellant Family v.  Rina Marom, IsrSC 49(1) 318).
6.  Therefore, it orders the execution of the deceased's oral will dated June 6, 2019, according to the division detailed in the memorandum deposited with the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs, and the postponement of the objection to its execution.
7.  A ruling will be submitted for my signature.
8. Levy on the objectors, jointly and severally, expenses and attorney's fees in the amount of ILS 18,000 in favor of the Applicant, which will be paid within 60 days and will not bear linkage and interest differentials in accordance with law.
9. Present to the parties and close the files in the heading.
10. Advertising without identifying information is allowed.

Given today, 2 Nissan 5785, March 31, 2025, in the absence of the parties.