These testimonies indicate that it is doubtful whether the plaintiff knew at all about the purpose of the deceased's meeting with the notary, but even if he knew, he was not present at the meeting itself, and even the deceased's transportation to the meeting was accompanied by other arrangements and was not made as a specific trip intended for the meeting with the notary only.
- To the above, it should be added that it has been proven that all the details of the will were given to the notary by the deceased and by her alone.
The notary testified that it was the deceased who gave him her ID number and that of the plaintiffs, and explained that the ID numbers of the objectors were not mentioned because he himself did not ask the deceased for them (pp. 10, 20-29 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).
- With regard to the notary's acquaintance with the plaintiff, the notary testified that he had represented the plaintiff in the past, that the plaintiff had been in his office 5-6 times and that he had represented him in two cases when he bought a plot of land for his home 20 years ago and the other time after the will was drafted (pp. 12, paras. 17-24 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).
In this context, it should be noted that the plaintiff did not deny his acquaintance with the notary even on a professional basis and testified that he consulted with him by telephone and as far as he remembers the notary did not represent him (pp. 132, paras. 16-20), contrary to the arguments of the opposing counsel in his summaries, I did not find that this apparent discrepancy between the plaintiff's testimony and the notary's testimony impairs the weight of the notary's detailed testimony. With regard to the weight of the plaintiff's testimony, in any case the judgment is not based solely on the plaintiff's testimony and relies mainly on the testimonies of the opponents and the notary's testimony.
As stated above, the fact that the notary has previously handled legal matters of the beneficiaries or any of them in itself does not attest to the existence of involvement in its drafting.