Where a presumption of unfair influence is established, the burden of bringing the evidence passes to the applicant for probate of the will. In the Marom case, additional auxiliary tests were proposed as follows: The Emotional Closeness Test - What is the testator's attitude toward the beneficiary? The existence of a positive emotion weakens the possibility of dependence and unfair influence. The Dispossession Test - The background to the dispossession or the motive for it can be significant, and its absence can support the possibility that the will was made due to unfair influence. Dependency Abuse Test - Whether the beneficiary took advantage of the testator's weakness in order to influence him. The Permissible Impact Test - A distinction between a legitimate and natural influence of the beneficiary on the will of the testator or on the behavior of the beneficiary that caused the testator's gratitude towards him and an unfair influence that has the dimension of harming the free will of the testator that will lead to the revocation of the will; Test of the Wisdom of the Will - Is the will reasonable according to the court's understanding of the testator's logic.
See also Shochat Feinberg, Plomin , Inheritance and Estate Law (2014), pp. 124-125).
In the context of such a situation, it was held that "the fact that a certain person is the sole heir according to the will does not merely create a factual assumption that he unfairly influenced the deceased in order to bequeath all his assets to him. On the contrary, in many cases the evidence supports the idea that the will reflects feelings of affection and closeness that prevailed between them, and that is why he bequeathed to that person, if only him, all his property on earth... Such kinship or assistance is not inadmissible, and although it is capable of influencing the content of the will, it does not constitute 'unfair influence,' since not every possible influence is invalid, improper and unfair" (Civil Appeal 1099/90 Sharoni v. Sharoni , IsrSC 47(4) 785, 794).
- The Dependency and Independence Test - As stated and detailed above, the deceased was almost completely independent physically at the time of making the will and was assisted by all her children, mainly for the purpose of transporting her by car for the purposes of arrangements, handling bills and forms, etc. From a mental point of view, the deceased was completely independent at the time the will was drafted.
It should be noted that despite the objector's claim that the deceased did everything that the plaintiff instructed her to do, the objector testified that the plaintiff told the deceased to move in with him and sell her house, but the deceased refused to do so and also shared this with the objector (p. 66, paras. 8-15 of the transcript of the hearing of June 9, 2022). This testimony shows that the deceased was completely independent in her decisions and that where she did not want to do anything, she did not do it, even if the plaintiff or the plaintiff or any of her children told her to do so. The fact that the deceased chose to share the matter with the objector in the matter omits the claim that the deceased was controlled or influenced by the plaintiff, since it is reasonable to assume that if this were the case, the deceased would have concealed the plaintiff's actions from the other children.