Hence the application for leave to appeal before us.
The parties' arguments
- According to the Applicant, the District Court's decision, which is based, inter alia, on the limited interpretation of section 8 ofthe Inheritance Law, completely nullifies the provisions of the section which prohibits the execution of a transaction in a future inheritance and the acquisition of property at the time of death that is not in the framework of a will. Therefore, the Applicant argues that the District Court erred in determining that the letter of undertaking is valid despite being an agreement regarding a person's inheritance, and that it is an agreement that is essentially null and void. The Applicant bases this argument, inter alia, on the use made of the phrase "one hour before my death" in the framework of the letter of undertaking; on the determinations of the Family Court; and the irrevocable power of attorney signed at the same time as the letter of undertaking.
- It was further argued by the Applicant that the District Court erred in determining that the Applicant was prevented from selling the farm during his lifetime without the prior approval of the Respondents; and that the District Court's determination that there is judicial estoppel in the Applicant's case is also erroneous. The Applicant further argues that even if the letter of undertaking had legal validity, the Applicant's right to do as he pleases in the farm during his lifetime remains. Therefore, the Applicant argues that at most, the letter of undertaking that he signed constitutes an undertaking to give a gift - which, according to him, can be withdrawn when the conditions set forth in the Law are met. Finally, the Applicant argues that the District Court's judgment is also erroneous on the grounds that the letter of undertaking is void because it contradicts the law that applies to the transfer of rights in farms in accordance with the provisions of the moshav's slot agreement. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Applicant requests that we consider the application before us as an appeal, that we cancel the judgment of the District Court, and that we restore the judgment of the Family Court.
- On the other hand, the respondents claim that the applicant's application for leave to appeal does not meet the criteria for its acceptance as determined by this court, since this application does not raise any fundamental legal issue that deviates from the individual interests of the parties and does not indicate a miscarriage of justice. On the merits of the matter, the respondents rely on the judgment of the District Court, and argue in their response, inter alia, for judicial silence that applies to the applicant in light of his contradictory arguments in the various proceedings; and evidence proving, according to them, the existence of the debts that arose on the farm that were paid by the respondent and granted it the rights claimed therein. The respondents further argue that the applicant's arguments in the various courts are unfounded and are contradicted by other evidence; and that the applicant lied about material matters in order to win the law, a reason that in itself justifies the rejection of the application in this case.
- In addition, the respondents argue that the applicant's arguments regarding the applicability of section 8 of the Inheritance Law are irrelevant to our case, since the District Court - contrary to the applicant's arguments - held, inter alia, that this was not a matter of granting property at the time of death, but rather an undertaking that was supposed to be fulfilled during the applicant's lifetime; that the undertaking between the parties was clear with respect to the overall contractual system between them; and that the expression "one hour before my death" used in the framework of the letter of undertaking is a defect in the agreements between the parties and nothing more. It was further argued by the Respondents that no proof or evidence was provided for the Applicant's contradictory positions; Therefore, the District Court's determination regarding the judicial silence that applies in the Applicant's case is correct, as determined in the judgment; that a similar result can be reached even by virtue of the laws of enrichment and not by law; and that the Applicant's arguments regarding the provisions of the Moshav Slot Agreement have no substance. In light of all this, the respondents request that we reject the application for leave to appeal before us.
Discussion and Decision
- After reviewing the writings that the parties placed before us, and in view of the miscarriage of justice caused to the applicant as a result of the District Court's ruling, I am of the opinion that it is correct to consider the application in question as an appeal within the framework of our powers under Regulations 149(2)(b), 149(2)(c) and 138(a)(5) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018. As to the substance of the matter, I would suggest to my colleagues that the appeal be accepted, that the judgment of the District Court be annulled and that the judgment of the Family Court be restored.
I'll list my reasons.