In our case, it emerged that although the notary did handle the plaintiff's affairs, he also handled the affairs of the deceased and the deceased son, and at the very least he had acquaintance with all the family members on the basis that they were neighbors in his childhood and at the time the will was drafted.
The objector confirmed in his testimony that the deceased had previously known the notary public (p. 28, paras. 7-8 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022). The notary testified that he was a childhood friend of the deceased son, during the 4-5 years that the families lived next door, and after they met again, the notary was already a lawyer and served as the deceased son's lawyer for decades. The notary also described that he and the deceased son lived about 100 meters from each other and that the deceased lived a 10-minute walk away. The notary described that the deceased used to visit her sons every Saturday, while passing by the notary's garden, and quite many times the notary met the deceased in this manner and spoke with her (p. 13, paras. 26-33 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).
The objector testified that the notary was a neighbor of the deceased (p. 28, 20-23 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022), and the objector also confirmed this in her testimony (p. 41, s. 10-12 of the minutes of the hearing of June 09, 2022). It should be noted here that the objector testified that the notary represented his father, the deceased son, only once, and that from the date he joined his father's (deceased son's business), the notary did not represent the deceased son and did not provide him with legal services (p. 37, paras. 6-7 of the minutes of the hearing of June 18, 2022).
The representation of the deceased son, even once, and the existence of neighborly relations and friendly acquaintance of the notary with all the members of the family, are sufficient in order to negate the existence of an excess interest of the notary towards the beneficiaries or any of them over the other heirs, and certainly not over the interest of the deceased, who clearly knew and relied on the notary.
- From all of the above it emerges that there was no involvement of the plaintiffs or any of them in the drafting of the will, and therefore the arguments of the opponents in this matter are rejected.
Unfair Influence:
- Section 30(a) The Inheritance Law states: "A provision of a will made as a result of rape, threat of unfair influence, deception or fraud - is void."
The burden of proving that the will was made due to unfair influence is placed on the person claiming such influence unless: "The circumstances surrounding the case indicate the existence of one person's dependence on another, which is so comprehensive and thorough that it can be assumed that the free and independent will of that person in relation to his relations with others has been denied, for then it can be said that an action or action that is clearly for the benefit of the other is the result of unfair influence on his part, unless the contrary is proved." (Civil Appeal 423/75 Ben Nun v. Richter IsrSC 31(1) 372).