The opponents also claimed that there was great doubt as to the veracity of the deceased's signature on the will.
The deceased was subjected to unfair influence - the opponents claim that the plaintiff had a very large influence on the deceased and that the deceased's dependence on the plaintiff caused the deceased to fear the plaintiff. According to them, the deceased was not independent, anxious about the plaintiff's departure and blindly obeyed him.
The opponents claim that following a financial dispute between the plaintiff and the deceased son, the plaintiff influenced the deceased against the deceased son, and shortly thereafter the will was made.
In this context, the opponents claim that a discourse about the deceased's property did not characterize the deceased and was unusual in relation to her.
The plaintiff was involved in the drafting of the will - the plaintiff lived near a notary who was a childhood friend of his, and he was the one who referred the deceased to him. The plaintiff drove the deceased to the notary's office, and he was the one who returned the deceased to her home at the end of the meeting.
In addition, the objectors claim that they were not duly made in accordance with Regulation 14B(4)(b) of the Inheritance Regulations, 5758-1988.
The opponents claim the existence of defects in the will as follows:
Lack of a serial number for notarization, failure to register the will in the Wills Register, and failure to specify the payment for drafting the notarized will.
The opponents further claim that the deceased did not read Hebrew and the will was not read to her.
The opponents claim that these are defects that cannot be corrected under section 25 of the Inheritance Law, and that this is a document that does not faithfully reflect the wishes of the deceased.
It should be noted here that at the beginning of the letter of objection it was stated that the objectors intend to argue on the matter of "the deceased's competence to understand the will at the time it was drafted ..". The opponents went on to detail their arguments regarding the deceased's understanding of the contents of the will, but no detailed and reasoned argument was raised regarding the deceased's competence at the time the will was drafted.