In the present case, the language of the will indicates that we are concerned with an arrangement of "heir after heir", when it was even explicitly stated that " his only heir will be his wife.... Her only heir will be her husband..." It was then determined that after the death of both spouses, i.e., after the death of the first spouse and the inheritance of the surviving spouse, their property that would be left would be transferred to the heirs as stated in the will.
From the language of the will here, it appears that the deceased both intended that their property would remain within their family, first to the spouse only, and then to their two daughters. This is what is written in the will, and this is how the witnesses confirmed in their will that this was the will of the deceased. It follows that they first took care of each other and after the death of both of them, whether they passed away together or whether their property passed to their daughters in equal parts.
In view of the above, we are dealing with an arrangement of "heir after heir" and in the absence of any restriction in the will - the deceased was entitled to give the property as a gift.
- For the sake of caution, I will add that we are dealing with a gift that was given during the life of the deceased, when it appears from the testimonies of the witnesses that all the parties knew about his will and intention, even if not about the transaction in its details or its completion in the registration. The plaintiff, her husband, Adv. L.S. and Adv. Z.S. They testified that the deceased made sure to declare his intention close to the date of the deceased's death, informed the plaintiff, and did not do so in the dark. The deceased, who was in a strained relationship with the plaintiff over the years, acted openly.
The following is learned from the plaintiff's testimony:
".. My father, in tricks, invited me, to him, to his house. When my mother's body had not yet cooled in the grave. He told me, come on, we need to sort out the family affairs. Come, that's not how you behave in a family, come on, let's talk... And then, he told me, sign me here, write me a letter, now that you're giving up everything, H. Now, I saw that he had covered, written, the apartment, damp. I said to him, "Why? Now, I knew that something like this would destroy a family. Why? Why? Why this bad blood? That it will last for generations? You saw, outside, Z., talking, my son, with A., her daughter, they are talking, on good terms. Why? Why leave bad blood for the family? It could have been corrected. Why should this be? ... There is an apartment, no apartment, it doesn't matter. You have one grandchild, who will never be tidy, ever. Leave him the apartment. He laughed at me, in his face. Q: And you signed? A: No."