The court ruled that any restriction on the freedom of the injunction requires a strict and careful interpretation, and it should not be inferred from the implicit or from the conduct of the parties alone.
In Family Appeal 39317-10-22 D.A. v. G.K. (given on October 2, 2023 published in the [Nevo] databases), Justice Weizmann described the law that applies to mutual wills made prior to Amendment 12 to the Inheritance Law:
"Reference to the mutual will as a will made prior to the amendment to the law
- If we wish to apply the law to the case, in view of the fact that we are dealing with mutual wills that were made prior to the amendment to the Law, an impediment by one of the drafters of the wills to make them will arise only if one of the following possibilities exists - first, if it will be possible to learn from the provisions of the will or from the circumstances of its signature or the circumstances in general that the parties undertake not to change it, and the second - as was ruled in the Zamir case and repeated by the scholars - if there is room to order precludes to changing the will out of the principle of good faith."
Is the will in our case a mutual will?
- In Family Appeal 36694-10-16 v. L. et al. (given on November 26, 2017 - published in the [Nevo] databases), the conditions under which it will be determined that these are mutual wills were described (paragraph 8 of the judgment):
"There is no dispute that Wills 91 are joint wills. They are the result of a joint decision by the deceased and the deceased to make them. Are they mutual wills? Wills are reciprocal when the arrangements made by one of the testators are based on the arrangements set by the other (the principle of reliance) and would not have been made without these arrangements. Classic examples: wills that include an arrangement of "heir after heir" or wills instructing of inheritance to those heirs, for example, are relatives on the part of one testator and relatives on the side of the other testator."