Family file (K.S.) 3858-07-23 M. G. v. C. A. C.

The plaintiffs, a couple, filed a lawsuit in which they petitioned that the court issue a declaratory order stating that they are the owners of the exclusive rights in Farm XX in XXXX (hereinafter: "the Farm"), and that they will be registered as a "continuing son" in accordance with the appointment made by the late Mr. S.  G.  (hereinafter: "the deceased"), the father of plaintiff 1 (hereinafter: "the plaintiff" or "M"), and defendants 1-3.

Defendants 1-3 - C.C., A.C., D.C.  - are the plaintiff's sister and brother.

In addition, the plaintiffs petition for monetary relief for the use of parts of the farm by defendants 2-3, without paying the plaintiffs consideration for this use.  However, since a monetary claim was filed by the defendants, it was determined in the decision of July 17, 2024 that this proceeding would be discussed only on the issue of the surviving son, while the financial remedies would be clarified in the framework of the defendants' claim in family case 41890-07-24.

Background required for the hearing

1. The deceased owned a farm with his wife. After her death in about 1983, all the rights in the farm passed to the deceased.
2. On November 29, 1984, the deceased signed an irrevocable declaration appointing his plaintiff's son and his plaintiff wife as a "continuing son". The plaintiffs signed this statement on the same day.  On the same day, the association recommended that the agency approve the appointment of the surviving son.
3. On December 12, 1984, the Agency approved the appointment of the successor son after receiving a request from the Agricultural Association in The appointment was not registered with the ILA.
4. The prosecutor became involved in criminal matters and was sentenced twice to long prison terms. The first time was in 1992, when he was sentenced to a five-year prison term, and the second time in 1999, when he was sentenced to two years.  It should be noted that in 1999 defendant 3 was also involved in criminal matters, according to the plaintiff, in the same affair, and was also sentenced to prison.
5. Since then, the plaintiffs have not returned to work on the estate, and it was in fact operated by the defendants and they are also the ones who benefited from its fruits.
6. In 2015, the late father passed away. Even after his death, the plaintiffs did not return to the farm, and this continued to be cultivated by the defendants.
7. A number of agreements were signed between the parties and the deceased father over the years. Some of the agreements were made between the brothers themselves, some were between the plaintiff and the father.  Some of them were signed by the parties and some were not signed at all, but by an attorney according to a power of attorney.  In addition to the various agreements, which were discussed in detail in the framework of the judgment, the deceased father left behind a will dated February 8, 2011.  The will was issued a probate order on May 10, 2016.  In his will, the father divided his property in a way that split the estate between the residential part and the agricultural areas.
8. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916It should be noted that each of the defendants owns his own estate and therefore, in accordance with ILA procedures, he cannot own another estate.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)