Involvement in the drafting of the will:
- Article 35 The Inheritance Law Indicates that "A provision of a will, other than an oral will, which entitles the person who drafted it or witnessed its execution, or otherwise took part in its drafting, and a provision of a will that entitles the spouse of one of the above, is void."
The third ground of disqualification, "took part in its drafting in a different way", uses a flexible expression that is filled with content according to the special circumstances of the specific case, and its implementation is done according to logic and common sense. Therefore, the presence of the beneficiary at the time of the drafting of the will that does not amount to being a witness or to the drafting of the will according to the first two alternatives in the section can be considered taking part in the drafting of the will in another way (Civil Appeal 6496/98 Butou v. Butou IsrSC 55(1) 19, 29).
As stated above, not every action related to the drafting of the will amounts to involvement in its drafting in the sense of section 35 of the Inheritance Law: "Any limited action of the beneficiary does not necessarily make him the person who took part in the drafting of the will. It is sometimes the accumulation of a number of different actions that will establish the conclusion that the beneficiary took part in the drafting of the will. In accordance with the case law, the totality of events, circumstances and connections must be examined from a broad perspective" [AMASH (Beer Sheva) 756-06-20 A.D. v. D.H. (published in Nevo, January 21, 2021)] In the aforementioned judgment, it was determined that the accumulation of a number of actions must accumulate to a "critical mass" in order for this to amount to involvement in the drafting of the will.
In the judgment in Civil Appeal 6496/98 Butto v. Butto above, it was held, as stated, that the presence of the beneficiary in itself does not impair the validity of the will, and the other circumstances of the case must be examined. Thus, it was noted that a beneficiary who talks with the testator about this and that is not the same as a beneficiary who gives instructions and instructions regarding the content of the will. It was further held there that even where the beneficiary invited the lawyer to pay his fees, and the fact that the beneficiary gave the contents of the will to the lawyer does not constitute an improper part in its drafting. Even the execution of a mission on behalf of the testator, who requested that the lawyer refer to him for the purpose of making the will, is also not part of the drafting of the will. It was further held that even where the lawyer who drafted the will had previously handled the beneficiary's affairs and she even assisted him with various details that were needed for the purpose of drafting the will, it does not amount to taking part in its drafting.