(b) A will that can be interpreted differently, the interpretation that fulfills it is preferable to the interpretation according to which it is void."
When the court comes to interpret a will, it will do so in a way that will fulfill the will of the testator, based on the principle of giving validity to the will of the testator, who has the right to control the distribution of his assets after his death. (See Civil Appeal 122/86 Shafir v. Klibansky [Nevo]).
In our case, an examination of the will of the deceased shows that its text is clear and clear and does not require interpretation and does not include a provision that indicates their desire to limit the possibility of changing the will. The deceased explicitly stated that upon the departure of each of them, the other would be the sole heir: "... His only heir will be his wife, N.S. ... Her only heir will be her husband V.S. "
The deceased determined that after each of them inherited the other exclusively, their daughters would be the heirs of all their property.
It can also be learned from the plaintiff's testimony that this was the case:
"Q: Yes. How, how did you get this will? A: I lived for many years in the Upper Galilee, and my parents came to my house and brought me the will. I remember my mother's face, that she was very proud that they made a will, together. I said to her, 'What, Mom, are you bringing me a will now?' You're young, no, exactly, and then they insisted on sitting down and explaining to me what was written in the will. I have never read the will. Q: What are they reasonable for you? A. They said that as soon as one of their species passes away, everything passes to those who remain alive, so that they will have something to live with. And after the other is gone, everything will be divided, half and half, between us." (Thus in the original - D.P.V.).
Therefore, I determine that the will of the deceased does not include any restriction on any of them to do with the property left to him as he wishes, i.e., and just as the application of the Zamir rule in our case leads to the conclusion that there was also no impediment to the deceased to change, prima facie, his will by way of the granting of a gift, and the very giving of the gift, by the deceased, should not be regarded as conduct in bad faith , and in this regard I will explain.
- In the Supreme Court's judgment handed down on September 10, 2024, by the Honorable Justice Willner, in Tax Appeal 7884/23 Anonymous v. Anonymous on September 10, 2024, it was written:
"In other words, according to the judgment in the Zamir case, the drafting of a mutual will in itself does not negate the power of a party to change his will, during the life of the other party and even after his death, in the absence of evidence of any other common intention of the parties. It is important to emphasize that with regard to this last possibility, and only this one, a narrow opening was left in the Zamir case: