Estate Case (Haifa) 20265-05-23 Estate of the deceased Anonymous v. - part 2

A part leased to the garage, used by Benny, XXXX (hereinafter: "Moyal Garage")

A portion leased to a commercial business, for rent (hereinafter: "Commercial Business")

1. I hereby order that as long as my wife, Mrs. Rickett Moyal, is separated for a long life, in life, then the complex will not be sold and no disposition will be made therein, and the rent received for renting the areas that constitute parts of the aforementioned compound will be transferred, in full, to my wife, Mrs. XXXX, for her livelihood purposes.
2. I hereby appoint my daughter, XXXX, to manage the rental affairs of the areas in the complex, exclusively, including signing rental agreements on my behalf, collecting the rent and other matters related to renting them, and she will be the one who will take care of the transfer of the rent to my wife, as aforesaid, at her discretion and in the interest of my wife.

• The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916I hereby declare my agreement that the compound will no longer be sold, because then my son, Shlomo Moyal, will have the right to continue to make use of the area allocated to the garage today, and to continue to manage his business there.

1. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)I hereby order that upon the death of my wife, the compound with all its territories will pass to my 3 children, in equal parts between them, as detailed below:

For boysXXXX - 1/3

For boysXXXX, - 1/3

For my daughterXXXX - 1/3

5. I hereby bequeath all funds and/or rights, of any kind whatsoever, that belong to me and which are found everywhere, including in the bank accounts, registered in my name, alone and/or separately, including, in the bank account registered in my name, in the Otzar Hachayal Bank, my son, from the Haifa administrative lawsuit, at Bank Leumi, the Tirat HaCarmel branch, as well as in the joint account of me and my wife, XXXXX, which is managed at Bank Hapoalim, Tirat Carmel Branch, for my daughter, Mrs. XXXX.
6. Any other property, for which no specific reference has been made in this Agreement, shall belong to the daughters of XXXX
7. I hereby appoint Adv. Liora Ohana to be the executor of my estate, executor and executor of this will.
8. To all my valid and legal heirs who are not mentioned in the will by name, I hereby bequeath 10 NIS."
9. On July 10, 2014, the deceased mother signed a document titled "General Power of Attorney", which was also drawn up by the drafter of the will, Adv. Ohana, by virtue of which the deceased father was authorized to act on her behalf in all her legal and financial matters.
10. On January 11, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to appoint her as a temporary guardian of the body and property for the deceased for a period of six months, which was opposed by the plaintiffs who petitioned to appoint them as guardians, but this proceeding was deleted following the death of the deceased on April 24, 2023 (guardianship 27673-01-23).
11. Copied from Nevoon January 5, 2023, about two months after the death of the deceased father (on October 30, 2022), the defendant submitted to the Custodian General a request to execute his will dated July 8, 2014. On April 3, 2023, the plaintiffs/opponents' objections were submitted to the court.  On April 17, 2023, the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs in Haifa ordered the transfer of the application for probate of the will and the objection to the Family Court in Haifa.
12. On May 8, 2023, the proceeding was transferred from the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs to this court. On June 27, 2023 (about three months after the mother's death on April 20, 2023), the defendant filed an action for a declaratory judgment ordering the enforcement of the provision of section 4(b) of the deceased's will, i.e., her appointment to serve as responsible for collecting the rent that the business owners in the business complex were required to pay to the deceased father (estate file 65409-06-23).
13. On June 27, 2023, the defendant/applicant filed an action on its behalf for declaratory relief regarding the management of a garage complex in the XXXX industrial zone, which was owned by the late father (estate file 65409-06-23).
14. On August 22, 2023, the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs in Haifa issued an inheritance order ordering an equal division between the three brothers with regard to the estate of the deceased mother (one-third for each of the brothers).
15. On December 18, 2023, the court appointed Adv. Almog Dahan to serve as the administrator of the late father's temporary estate (estate file 20302-05-23), in light of the scope of the estate and the nature of the dispute between the parties.
16. On March 12, 2024, a report was submitted to the court on behalf of the temporary estate manager, to which was attached the opinion of a real estate appraiser (Dr. Assaf Gustfreund), which shows that the value of the apartment in the apartment of the deceased parents on XXXXX Street as of March 7, 2024 is ILS 3,350,000 and that the lease rights on the apartment are registered equally in the name of the deceased (half for each).
17. The report also shows that the lease rights in the garage on XXXXX Street are registered only in a different appeal of the deceased father, and that as of March 11, 2024, the value of the proper rent is ILS 10,000 per month, the value of the lease rights is ILS 3,250,000 (excluding VAT), while the value of the proper rent is ILS 13,000 per month (excluding VAT).
18. During the hearing, which took place on February 13, 2024, the claim for declaratory relief regarding the management of the garage complex was dismissed (Estate Case 65409-06-23). This is in light of the agreements reached by the parties, inter alia.

Arguments of the Opponents/Plaintiffs:

16. The opponents/plaintiffs claim that the defendant/applicant abused the fact that she lived in their parents' apartment for many years, and that she exerted mental pressure on the deceased to make a will, the provisions of which significantly benefit her while discriminating against them, and by assisting attorney Liora Ohana, who drafted the will, as well as powers of attorney regarding the deceased mother.
17. According to them, despite the deceased's advanced age at the time of drafting the will (age 79) and despite the fact that he suffered from severe vision problems and a head injury that occurred shortly before the will was drafted (pages 39-42 and 50 of the appendices to the opponents' affidavit of January 15, 2025), prior to the preparation of the will, Adv. Ohana did not require the deceased to present to her a medical certificate that he was fit to make a will, and in addition, she acted in an apparent conflict of interest. by influencing the deceased to appoint her as the executor of his estate after his death.
18. The opponents claim that during the month of July 2021, the defendant approached them with a request to be appointed as a guardian of the deceased mother's body and property, and that for this purpose she demanded that they agree to have Adv. Ohana enter into an agreement between her and them, according to which she would receive a salary of ILS 6,000 per month for the purpose of caring for the deceased mother.
19. According to them, they also learned in retrospect that an agreement had been signed between the Applicant and their deceased father, by virtue of which the deceased father undertook to pay her a monthly salary of ILS 6,000 from January 1, 2015 onwards, which accumulated to a debt of ILS 594,000, and that this debt would be considered a debt of the estate to her.
20. The objectors also claim that not only did the Applicant live free of charge in her parents' apartment, but that the deceased parents also purchased a new vehicle for her, and in addition gave her a large sum of money as a gift for the purpose of purchasing her own private apartment, but in practice the defendant used this sum for completely different needs, and in addition to that, they also increased their money as well as the funds received from the garage owners. Although these funds were intended to be used for the medical needs of the deceased mother.
21. According to them, the Applicant also had complete control over the deceased parents' money through the use of the deceased father's checkbook as well as the credit cards of both parents, and that in this way she abused her parents' dependence on her, and unfairly influenced the deceased father to draw up a will that benefited her.
22. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that while the drafter of the will, Adv. Liora Ohana, noted in her testimony in court that the will was drawn up while the deceased was alone in her office, the defendant's testimony indicated that she was physically present at Adv. Ohana's office at the time the will was drafted, and in addition, she demanded to receive photographs and gold jewelry from the estate.
23. According to them, the drafter of the will should have required the deceased to present to her a medical certificate stating that he was competent to make the will, because shortly before the will was drafted he was hospitalized due to a stroke, and in addition, he should have demanded that the deceased mother present her with a medical document according to which she was competent to draw up the power of attorney in light of her advanced age, and not to be satisfied with her personal impression alone.
24. According to them, the accumulation of evidence presented to the court (concealment of the drafting of the will until 2021, signing the power of attorney regarding the mother and signing the will on identical dates; the defendant's refusal to leave her parents' apartment and work; the agreement she made with the father without their knowledge, according to which she agreed to work as the mother's caregiver only for a salary of ILS 6,000 per month; the use of the credit cards of the deceased parents; the late father's response in 2021 that he did not understand the provisions of the will and that they should discuss the matter with The defendant, etc.) indicates that their parents developed an absolute dependence on her, which forced the deceased father against his will to make a will that would benefit him over his deceased wife and on their faces.
25. The plaintiffs further claim that the duty of the testator should be attributed to the fact that she did not sign the will with her signature but only with a stamp, and therefore this is a material failure that goes to the root of the matter in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 and 25(b)(2) of the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965.
26. According to them, the deceased father did not see himself as an independent party in making decisions relating to the will, because the defendant was the dominant and influential figure in terms of its drafting and needs, and as evidenced by text messages on the "WhatsApp" application that defendant sent to plaintiff No. 2, it was noted that the deceased father should "sort things out".
27. According to them, in accordance with the doctrine of "intertwined threads" that was established in the Supreme Court's ruling, it can be concluded that contrary to what is stated in the affidavit, in practice she physically came to Adv. Ohana's office, and that she was asked by Adv. Ohana what property she wished to receive from the estate.
28. According to them, the deceased was misled by Attorney Ohana because it was not explained to him before the will was drawn up that half of his rights in the residential apartment belonged to his deceased wife, because Attorney Ohana noted to him that "a person can only bequeath what belongs to him."
29. According to them, Adv. Ohana erred in not inquiring with the deceased father why she chose to entrust the responsibility for the lease agreements to the defendant, even though she lacked experience in managing garages and managing the drafting of agreements and collecting money from tenants, while one of the objectors operates a garage himself and is skilled in performing such an action, so that for this also reason there is room to order the cancellation of the will.
30. According to the plaintiffs, the totality of the external circumstances indicates that the will should be invalidated, because apart from the defendant's physical presence in the office of the testator, it can be clearly concluded that the defendant initiated the application to Adv. Ohana, who is mentioned in the will as someone who is intended to serve as the executor of the estate, and in addition to that she maintained contact with her for many years, and also acted to intimidate her father and even made an attempt to isolate him from the rest of the family.

The defendant/applicant's arguments:

31. The defendant/applicant claims that the reason why the deceased father discriminated against her in favor in the framework of the will stemmed from the fact that both of her brothers had real estate assets and financial collateral from their workplaces, because plaintiff 2 is a retired officer in the Israel Police who is entitled to a monthly benefit, and plaintiff 1 is a garage owner in a compound that belongs to the father, and on the other hand, she herself was left childless, unemployed from work for many years. 48 years old at the time of making the will and without a residential apartment she owns.
32. According to her, she lived in her parents' apartment since 1993 and greatly assisted her parents by taking care of them, driving them to events and medical treatments and taking care of all their needs, and that, contrary to what was claimed by her brother, they are both supposed to inherit significant sums by virtue of the probate order, so their claim regarding their exclusion from the will due to unfair influence on her part is baseless.
33. The defendant further claims that half of the funds and rights bequeathed to them by their late mother belong to the estate of the deceased father, and that although she contacted her brother in writing on this matter on February 23, 2025, the two ignored the request.
34. With regard to the cognitive and mental state of the deceased father, the defendant argues that the medical documentation that was prepared close to the date of making the will shows that the deceased did not suffer from a visual impairment that did not allow him to read the provisions of the will, and that, contrary to what was claimed, he fully understood all the provisions of the will that he signed.
35. It was further argued by the defendant that from the medical documentation from November 15, 2021 and October 9, 2022, as well as from the affidavit of plaintiff 1, it can be clearly learned that at the time of making the will and also many years later, the deceased was completely independent, and as evidenced by his ability to perform standard activities such as driving a car, cooking, shopping, dressing independently, signing rental agreements, drawing checks, using television and home computers, etc.
36. The defendant further notes that although she drove the deceased father to the office of the testator, Adv. Liora Ohana, contrary to her brother's claim, she was not present in the room at the time the will was drafted and did not take any part in its drafting.
37. According to her, the deceased approached the testator on his own initiative without her herself influencing him to benefit her, and that the provisions of the will reflected in practice his displeasure and anger at her brother's alienated attitude towards him on the one hand, and the deceased's satisfaction with her devoted care of their deceased mother over many years, on the other.
38. The defendant, who represents herself as of September 18, 2025, complains in her summaries about the professional conduct of her many attorneys throughout the proceeding, as well as about the conduct of the testator.
39. According to her, the plaintiffs concealed from her knowledge an irrevocable power of attorney that was given to them by the deceased mother, and claims that the deceased father's will reflects the deceased father's desire to benefit her due to the many efforts she invested in caring for him and the deceased mother, and due to her problematic family and financial situation.
40. The defendant further states in her summaries that her siblings are motivated by a sense of anger towards her and their parents for transferring them to a boarding school from the age of 11, and that the plaintiffs should be credited with the fact that they did not summon the second subsistence witness who verified the deceased's signature (Adv. Doreen Suleiman).

Discussion and Decision :

41. As is well known, the main ground relevant to the arguments raised by the opponents, as a material ground for the invalidation of a will, is the cause of unfair influence, which is one of the grounds that are determined within the framework of the provision of section 30(a) of the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965.
42. As a rule, it is not the existence of the influence that invalidates the will, but rather the existence of an unfair element whose essence is the exploitation of the testator's dependence or weakness, and therefore the court must be convinced of the existence of an unfair element in it, in such a way that the will was the result of that component or insofar as the influencer is the beneficiary himself or someone on his behalf.
43. The burden of proving that the testator made his will by means of unfair influence rests on the person claiming the existence of that influence, and any doubt in this regard works in favor of the applicant for probation, but when the circumstances of the case show that there was a comprehensive and thorough dependence of the testator on the beneficiary, and that the provision of the disputed will is clearly in favor of the beneficiary, then the burden of proof will shift to the applicant for the execution of the will.
44. In the Supreme Court's ruling in the matter of Additional Civil Hearing 1516/95 Rina Marom v. Attorney General of June 22, 1998, it was held, with reference to the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of the Inheritance Law, that if the factual circumstances are met in the following four auxiliary tests, which are required for the purpose of examining the dependence that has arisen between the beneficiary and the testator for the purpose of establishing a presumption of unfair influence, then the burden of proof shifts to the applicant for the execution of the will, who is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that the presumption was concealed:
45. The degree of physical and mental independence of the testator - whether the beneficiary unfairly abused the testator's physical and cognitive condition in order to make a will that benefits him.
46. The test of dependence and assistance between the beneficiary and the testator - If it turns out that the testator was indeed not independent and therefore needed the assistance of others, the nature of the assistance, its scope and the degree of dependence on the giver as well as on others must be examined.

• The test of the testator's relations with others is whether the testator has relationships with people other than the beneficiary and what their strength was, and whether the testator is isolated from others in order to increase his dependence on the beneficiary.

1. The test of the circumstances of the drafting of the will, including an examination of the degree of the beneficiary's involvement in its drafting, even if it is not consistent with the provisions of section 35 of the Inheritance Law (Wills for the Benefit of Witnesses).
2. In accordance with the language of the case law, the use of these tests must be very careful, since dependence in itself does not constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of unfair influence, nor even for the establishment of a presumption as to its existence, but rather with regard to the probability that dependence negated the free will of the testator. Therefore, a will will be revoked only if it proves an unfair influence that takes advantage of the testator's dependence, weakness and inability to make a will that benefits the testator.
3. The element of unfairness is learned from the circumstances of the operation and the existence of an unfair element therein, and not necessarily because of the circumstances of the act or because of the results that the influencer seeks to achieve, such as remuneration for drafting a will in exchange for assistance, or polite persuasion without pressure and threats to make a will that benefits the beneficiary.
4. The same applies to an examination of the testator's relations with others, and even to draw conclusions from the circumstances of the drafting of the will, since in order to recognize the existence of unfair influence, the existence of some of the aforementioned tests is sufficient to indicate the existence of such influence.
5. In addition, it was determined in the matter in Tax Appeal 4459/14 Anonymous v. Anonymous of May 6, 2015 ("The "intertwined threads" rule is an auxiliary test for deciding the claim of unfair influence, according to which even when the various grounds do not establish each as an independent cause, they have the power to intertwine together into the layers that strengthen and establish the existence of unfair influence (see also: Estate Case (Haifa Family) 30713-03-23 Anonymous v.  Anonymous dated November 3, 2025 and the references to Shem; Prof.  Yitzhak Cohen, Family Law and Inheritance in Israel, Bursi Publishing, Declaratory Law - General - 2025, pp.  292-293).
6. 00However, according to the provisions of the Inheritance Law, the beneficiary must refrain from making or drafting the will, since the purpose of this provision is to deter involvement in the making of the will by an entity that may benefit from it (see: Family Appeal (Beer-Sheva District) 756-06-20 D. v.  D.H.  of January 21, 2021).

0

50. Specifically, the phrase "took part in the drafting of a will" is a flexible expression that "fills in content" according to the circumstances of each and every case, and its implementation is done according to logic and common sense, where the test is not the degree of fear of unfair influence on the testator, but rather the degree of involvement and severity according to the circumstances of each and every case in the common sense test (see: in Tax Appeal 7049/15 Anonymous v. Anonymous of January 17, 2015; Civil Appeal 5869/09 Hermon v.  Golov, IsrSC 59(3) 1).
51. The examination of improper involvement is carried out using two tests - one, the intensity test, i.e., whether the beneficiary took part in the drafting of the will according to the degree and severity of the will, so that the deeper the involvement and activity of the beneficiary, the more the court will tend to view it as invalidating the will.
52. The second test in light of which the degree of involvement must be examined is the test of the accumulation of events, i.e., the accumulation of events and connections, each of which in itself cannot tip the scales, but may create the same involvement in the drafting of the will that could lead to its invalidation (see: Estate Case (Haifa Family) 30713-03-23 Anonymous v. Anonymous dated 3.11.2025 and the references to Shem).
53. Therefore, any limited action by the beneficiary does not necessarily make him the one who took part in the drafting of the will, and sometimes the accumulation of a number of different actions may establish the conclusion that the beneficiary did indeed take part in the drafting of the will.
54. It is necessary to examine the entirety of events, circumstances and connections from the facts that are laid out before him about the circumstances of making the will and whether the involvement of the beneficiary amounts to prohibited involvement in accordance with the factual basis that is brought before the court regarding the circumstances of making the will (see: Family Appeal (Beer-Sheva District) 756-06-20 D. v.  D.H.  of January 21, 2021 and the references to Shem).

Was the defendant involved in drafting the late father's will ?

55. The plaintiffs note in their summaries that the defendant was very involved in the drafting of the will, due to her presence in Adv. Ohana's office at the time of the drafting of the will, and because according to her testimony she acted to have Adv. Ohana, who is also mentioned in the will as the designated executor of the estate after the deceased's death, make the will due to her acquaintance with her sister, Mrs. Einat Ohana (see: paragraphs 17-22 of the plaintiffs' summaries).
56. It should be noted that from the testimonies that were heard before the court, it appears that the plaintiffs were not at all aware of the fact that the will was drafted in "real time" during 2014, and that they were very surprised to discover that it was drawn up only in 2019 or 2021 (see: the testimony of plaintiff 1 on page 7, line 31 - page 8, line 39; the testimony of plaintiff 2 on page 101, line 29 - page 102, line 18; page 119, lines 25-30 of the transcript of April 28, 2025). Thus, the circumstances of the drafting of the will must be examined only from a "first tool", i.e., according to the testimonies of the defendant and Adv. Ohana.
57. With regard to the circumstances of the drafting of the will, the defendant states on page 5 of the affidavit as follows:
58. The plaintiff did not take part in the drafting of the will and was not present at the time of its signing

"40.      To the claim in paragraph 24 of my brother's affidavits: I did not take part in the drafting of the will.  I was not present when our father signed the will.  The will was not made "on my own initiative": my father, as mentioned, really wanted to take care of me and asked to write the will.  He said, on his own initiative, to attorney Liora Ohana that he wanted to take care of me and asked her to prepare a will for him.

41. There is no dawn and there is no evidence that I exerted "pressure on my father in order to sign the will."
42. I arrived with our father at the office of Adv. Ohana, who asked me to leave the room when she signed our father's will .  I left the office until our father left Attorney Ohana's office and we returned home.  Our father paid the taxi drivers both on the trip to Adv. Ohana and when we returned home from her."
43. However, during her testimony in court, the defendant noted that the two powers of attorney that were drawn up in the matter of the deceased mother close to the date of making the will were made at the home of her deceased parents, and that she came to Adv. Ohana's office together with the deceased father, at his request, during the preparatory meeting, during which she was asked by Adv. Ohana what part of the estate she wished to receive. It lasted about 40 minutes (see: page 26, lines 17-27; page 27, lines 35-36 of the minutes of November 17, 2025).
44. On the other hand, Adv. Ohana's testimony shows that the deceased, whom she knew only superficially, contacted her by phone shortly after she had notarized his family's case. According to her, he came to her office alone for the purpose of holding a preliminary meeting for the will, during which she examined relevant data such as details of his assets, marital status, etc.
45. Although the continuation of Adv. Ohana's testimony did not rule out the possibility that the defendant was present in the foyer of her office, according to her, the deceased was the only one who was present in her office at the time of the drafting and validation of the will, which were executed on the same day, after the deceased paid her fees, and after she clarified to him the legal significance that derives from her provisions, and especially her appointment as the administrator of his estate. as well as the legal significance of the partnership rule in his case (see: page 2, lines 1-11; page 2, line 29 - page 4, line 3; page 4, lines 17-37; page 67, lines 6-7 of the minutes of November 17, 2025).
46. In accordance with the language of the case law, even in cases where the beneficiary invited the lawyer who drafted the will and paid his fees, and even assisted the lawyer with various details that he needed for the purpose of the will because of taking an improper part in the drafting of the will (see: [Civil Appeal 760/86 Rosen v. Shulman, IsrSC 34(3), 586; Civil Appeal 2500/93 Steiner v.  The Mutual Aid Factory of the Organization of Central European Immigrants, IsrSC 50 (3) 338).
47. In addition, there is no ethical or legal impediment (according to the provision of section 81 of the Inheritance Law) to the executor of the will to serve as the executor of the estate, except in cases where the court or the Registrar of Inheritance Affairs believes that there are special reasons not to appoint the executor of the will, or alternatively, a specific attorney, or another person who is mentioned in the will as the administrator of the intended estate (see: Estate Case (Family Jerusalem) 21159-07-21 Anonymous v. N.  of February 21, 2022 and the references to Shem).
48. Moreover, even in cases where the testator was assisted by the beneficiary in order to transport him to the law firm where the will was drafted, and even in cases where the testator asked the beneficiary to contact the law firm where the will was drafted, as well as in cases where the beneficiary was present at the meeting itself prior to the preparation of the will, does not necessarily constitute unfair influence or taking part in the drafting of the will (see: Claims after the Litigation Arrangement (Tel Aviv Family) 26869-04-20 Anonymous v. Anonymous dated February 4, 2026 and the references there).
49. However, the test of the circumstances of the drafting of the will and the degree of the beneficiary's involvement in the drafting of the will is only a secondary test, and is not independent, in the sense that it can assist in drawing a conclusion as to the existence of unfair influence if all the other tests point to such influence (see: Shaul Shohat, Nahum Feinberg and Yehezkel Plomin, Inheritance and Estate Law, Bursi Publishing, p. 125).
50. Although on the face of it there are unexplained factual discrepancies regarding the version of the testator and the defendant's version regarding the defendant's presence in Adv. Ohana's office prior to the preparation of the will, as well as regarding the difference between the date of drafting the will (July 8, 2014) and the date of drawing up the general power of attorney given to the father (July 10, 2024) and after the notarized power of attorney in favor of the defendant (July 4, 2024), which may be explained due to the long time between the date of testimony in court and the date of making the will, Thus, in this case, there is no reason to determine that there was excessive involvement on the part of the defendant, in a manner that deviates from the criteria set out in the courts' rulings.
51. In addition, I was also under the impression that the will reflected the deceased's wishes as of that date after he described to Adv. Ohana his demands both during the meeting that took place in her office and/or also at his home on the day the power of attorney was drawn up (see: testimony of Adv. Ohana on page 12, lines 6-17 and on page 14, lines 30-35; testimony of the defendant on page 26, lines 17-29 of the transcript of November 17, 2025).
52. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, there is no reason to determine that in this case the defendant took part in the drafting of the will in a manner that deviates from the criteria outlined in the courts' rulings.

The Legal Significance of Failure to Obtain a Medical Opinion on the Deceased's Matter Before Making a Will :

68. The plaintiffs claim in their summaries that prior to the preparation of the will, Adv. Ohana did not demand that the deceased father provide her with a medical opinion according to which he was medically and cognitively fit to make a will, even though he was 79 years old at the time, and despite the fact that he suffered from a poor medical condition and according to them had no ability to understand the content and nature of his will, due to a head injury that impaired his ability to judge and understand.
69. Regarding the reason why a medical opinion was not requested from the deceased father, the executor of the will, Adv. Ohana, stated as follows (see: page 2, lines 21-28 of the minutes of November 17, 2025):

" Q:              Please tell me, and you asked him for medical paperwork, medical documentation, something that taught you about his condition? About his kashrut?