In his summaries, the plaintiff's counsel sought to determine that the father was limited in his power to carry out any action in the assets and at most could have acted with his own assets only, while he must protect the interest of the deceased, which was the transfer of her property equally to the parties. He also referred to Civil Appeal 4409-98, Melamed v. Solomon, from which he said that it should be learned that a joint will is reciprocal, when the arrangements made by one of the testators are based on the arrangements made by the other testator, otherwise these arrangements would not have been made, and therefore, according to him, since the deceased would not have made her will as it would have been if the deceased had not made it as well, it should be determined that in his case we are dealing with clear mutual wills.
She also claimed that the deceased asked her to sign a document in which she waived her rights in the property, and this, according to her, indicates that the deceased was aware of the weight and significance of the will and sought to evade it and find a way to circumvent it.
The defendant's claims:
- The will of the deceased was drawn up in 1987, i.e., prior to the enactment of section 8A of the Inheritance Law, and therefore it is not possible to attribute to them the status of "mutual wills" and accordingly it is not possible to rely on the principle of reliance on the deceased mother.
Counsel for the defendant, in his summary, refers to clause A of the will, which explicitly states that the deceased has the authority "at any time" to cancel, change or detract from the will, without any proprietary restriction, while preserving the property of the other testator, according to him, we are dealing with a joint will that can be changed at any time, and in his case it could have been changed for a good reason, namely the murky relationship between the plaintiff and the father, which behaved in a disrespectful manner towards him. He further adds that the plaintiff knew during the deceased's lifetime that a gift had been given to the defendant and did nothing.