The objector could not rule out the notary's version that the deceased had met with him prior to the drafting of the will (p. 62, S. 2325 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022). It was only at this stage that the objector testified for the first time that the deceased told her that the plaintiff came "and signed me something and I don't know what it was for" (p. 63, paras. 9-10 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022). This is a later version that is a suppressed testimony, with all that it entails, and in any event it is inconsistent with the notary's testimony that was not contradicted.
- From the above compilation, it appears that the notary's testimony was not contradicted and in significant parts of it was supported by the testimony of the opponents or any of them. This is the only testimony that does not originate from family members of the parties, and it even appears, as stated above, that the notary knew all the family members, including the objector and the deceased son, even if only against the background of neighborly relations. Therefore, I found that the notary's testimony carries significant weight in the circumstances.
The notary's testimony shows that the deceased, on her own initiative and independently, expressed her desire to make a will and expressed her desire in relation to the contents of the will, first in a telephone conversation with the notary, then in a meeting held in the notary's yard, and again in his office when the will was signed after it was read to the deceased.
This detailed testimony is sufficient to meet the required threshold to prove beyond any doubt that the will reflects the will of the deceased.
- More than necessary, I found it necessary to note that the objectors sought to attribute claims of unreliability to the differences between the testimonies of the notary and the objector with respect to the date on which the plaintiff first approached a notary public after the deceased's death.
The notary testified that the plaintiff contacted him after the memorial of the 30th anniversary of the deceased (pp. 11, 32-33). The notary noted that the objector had also approached him "Nearby, I guess after the thirty" However, he could not say whether the conversation took place before or after the conversation with the plaintiff (p. 12, paras. 1-3 of the transcript of the hearing of October 18, 2021). The plaintiff initially testified that the conversation with the notary took place after the shiva and did not remember whether it was before or after the thirty (p. 106, paras. 10-15 of the minutes of the hearing, December 29, 2022). When confronted with the fact that the notary testified that the conversation took place after 30 o'clock, he replied "I also said now that it was probably after the 30s" (p. 108, paras. 8-9 of the transcript of the hearing of December 29, 2022). Later he testified "Probably it was around thirty" (p. 109, paras. 17-19 of the minutes of the hearing of December 29, 2022). In his affidavit, the plaintiff testified that the objector had spoken with him about going to the grave at the end of the thirtieth day and that he already knew about the will following a conversation he had had with the notary a few days earlier (paragraph 12 of the plaintiff's affidavit of August 25, 2021).