Estate Case (Jerusalem) 22123-09-23 T.M. v. A.M.

Objection to the application for an inheritance order after the deceased Mr. D.M.  z"l, submitted by his daughter - Mrs. A.M., against her mother, the widow of the deceased - Mrs. T.M., arguing that she should not be considered a "spouse" who legally inherits the deceased, in circumstances in which she and the deceased separated and conducted legal proceedings several years prior to his death.

Factual Background

1. Mr. D.M.  The late (hereinafter: "the deceased"), passed away on February 6, 2023, while he was married to Mrs. T.M.  (hereinafter: "The couple married in 1984 and have six adult children.
2. Mrs. A.M.  (hereinafter: "the objector"), is the daughter of the deceased and the respondent, and in the framework of this proceeding she objected to the issuance of an inheritance order according to the law to the deceased.  According to what is claimed in the statement of claim, the relationship between the objector and her mother – the respondent – has been unstable for years and the relationship between them has been severed.
3. Proceedings were conducted between the deceased and the respondent prior to his death in this court, when the respondent petitioned against the deceased in a property claim (claims after the settlement of litigation 1124-03-20), which, according to her, did not progress in light of the deceased's objection and the lack of cooperation on his part.
4. No divorce proceedings were conducted between the couple in the Rabbinical Court, despite the fact that the Respondent and the deceased had been separated for several years prior to his death (paragraph 20 of the statement of defense; the Respondent's testimony at p. 15, paras. 1-3 of Prot. dated January 6, 2025).
5. About five months after his death, the Respondent petitioned for an inheritance order in accordance with the law of the deceased, which was submitted on June 6, 2023 to the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs, according to which she inherited half of the rights of his estate, while his six children (including the objector) inherited the other half (1/12 each).
6. In September 2023, the objector petitioned the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs in opposition to the issuance of an inheritance order, arguing that the deceased had been separated from his wife – the respondent – for the past 4.5 years, and in these circumstances, even though they had not officially divorced, she should not be considered as the spouse of the deceased.
7. According to her, her parents' joint home was for sale in the framework of a bankruptcy proceeding, and the deceased's attorney in the same proceeding had a letter stating that her late father had transferred the farm to her; Therefore, she petitioned to extend the deadline until she could take legal representation.
8. In light of this notice, the file was transferred to Fathi by the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs, who announced his intention not to interfere in the proceedings in question.  (See: my decision of September 13, 2023, and the notice of the family appellant's counsel of December 5, 2024).
9. To complete the picture, in parallel with the said application, an objection was filed on behalf of the creditor of the deceased's estate, but it was deleted by his consent in a decision of October 29, 2023, following the decision of September 13, 2023, and when it was clarified that his arguments relate to the scope of the estate and not to the identity of the heirs, and therefore they do not constitute a substantive reason for the objection to the granting of an inheritance order after the deceased (Estate Case 22310-09-23).
10. In addition, in the framework of another proceeding taken by the creditor of the estate, I granted his request to appoint a temporary executor of the estate of the deceased, who would be authorized to manage and enter the assets of the estate and to manage the proceeding taken by the creditor against the estate of the deceased in the Execution Office (which was delayed in view of the absence of an inheritance order for the deceased and as long as a temporary administrator was not appointed).  See my decision of April 30, 2024 in the related proceeding (Estate Case 68492-05-23).  The validity of the appointment of the Temporary Civil Administration was extended according to the agreement of the parties in my decision of December 17, 2024, for a period of 6 months.
11. The objection before me was finally filed, but on March 3, 2024, after the objector was given several extensions of time to file her objection.
12. The Mahut proceeding to which the parties were referred was unsuccessful, as was an attempt to refer them to mediation.
13. In my decision of October 22, 2024, I granted the objector's request for the disclosure of documents regarding the legal proceedings that took place between the deceased and the respondent in this court and in the rabbinical court, which were requested in order to substantiate her claim that the respondent should not be considered a "spouse" of the deceased, in order to give the objector a day in this proceeding; I also granted her request to receive medical material regarding the mental health treatment that the deceased underwent and a recording of conversations that the deceased gave to the police as part of the complaints he filed against the respondent.
14. The respondent's affidavits were submitted on time, while the objection's affidavits were submitted about a month late.  In the hearing of January 6, 2025, the objector explained her failure by waiting for all the information to be collected from the rabbinical court and the police (see pp. 6-7 of the probe of January 6, 2025).
15. On January 6, 2025, the evidentiary hearing was held, at the end of which oral summaries were heard, and therefore the case is ready for a decision.
16. After hearing the summaries of the parties, the objector petitioned on her behalf to instruct Adv. Y.P.  To provide the court or the objector with all the material in his possession in the case of the deceased, including the document that was claimed to have been signed by the deceased and the defendant before him.
17. In my decision of January 8, 2025, I granted the request with the Respondent's consent, while limiting the time period for the submission of the requested information, so that the production of the requested information would not delay the rendering of the judgment in the present proceeding.
18. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid, any additional information on behalf of Adv. Y.P.  The case was not submitted until this date, and no application was filed on behalf of the objector in this regard.

The Objection's Arguments

1. The objector has two main arguments, according to which she petitioned to accept the objection, to order the rejection of the application for an inheritance order and to determine that she is the deceased's heir and that his widow is not entitled to any part of his estate.
2. Her first argument concerns the existence of a so-called "will" that the deceased made in her favor.  According to her, in conversations that the deceased had with her, especially before his death, he promised her that all of his estate would be in her favor, and that she would inherit the farm ** in the moshav, and live there.  According to her, the deceased also expressed this desire in a conversation with the social worker who came to visit him on January 15, 2024 (a transcript of which was attached as Appendix 1 to the objection).  The objector claimed that her late father had no intention of bequeathing to the respondent his share of the assets, but at most agreed that she would receive her share of the farm (half) as part of the dissolution of a partnership between them when the farm was sold, taking into account a loan arrangement between him and the potential purchaser (which was not perfected to terminate the transaction due to his death).
3. Her second argument relates to  a substantive examination  of the term "spouse" under the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: the "Inheritance Law").  According to her, the deceased and the respondent had lived separately for about 4.5 years (as of 2019) and were in divorce proceedings, so that in practice the respondent cannot be considered an inheriting spouse according to the law and its purpose (section 10 of the Inheritance Law), according to the natural sense of justice in light of exceptional circumstances that show, according to her, the duration of the separation and the intensity of the rift between the parties; by virtue of legislative harmony and as also emerges from the Memorandum of Monetary Law (2006); and according to the substantive approach adopted in the case law in this matter (Family Case 3668-09-18; Civil Appeal 97-247; Estates file 108091-08).

The Respondent's Arguments

1. With regard to the first argument of the objector – the respondent argued that the objector did not bring any evidence and did not even claim that the deceased had made a will, and it is not possible to learn from the transcript of the telephone call to which the objector referred about one or another will of the deceased, and in any case the transcript of the recordings does not constitute a will according to the law (section 18 of the Law).  The deceased could have written a will, and when he did not do so, he testified to his will.
2. With regard to her second argument – the Respondent argued that it contradicts the provisions of the Law (sections 10 and 11 of the Inheritance Law), and the case law that determined that the examination of the deceased spouse for the purposes of the Inheritance Law is formal, and as long as there is a marital relationship between the testator and the spouse – the spouse will inherit the testator, with the "remedy" for cases in which there is no relationship between the spouses in the possibility of each of them making a will (Family Appeal 38845-10-12; Estate Case 54778-12-13; Estate Case 108091-08; Family file 50714-04-17).  The variety of arguments of the objector and her reference to various rulings deal with extreme cases that were brought in case law, while the case at hand is not included in their scope.
3. To complete the picture, the respondent argued that since this is an estate in a tripartite agreement, insofar as no successor son is appointed, in accordance with the agreement, the inheritance passes to the spouse.

Discussion and Decision