Thus, from the rule of the above, it emerges that at the time of the drafting of the will, the deceased was not dependent on the plaintiff or the plaintiff, and there was a significant connection between the deceased and all her children (at least until the severance of contact with the deceased son that occurred after the drafting of the will), each of whom assisted her in the relevant field of his abilities, physical closeness, connections and knowledge.
- From all the testimonies detailed above, it also emerges that at the time the will was drafted, the deceased was in contact with all of her children as well as with others, including her niece, Mrs. K., who also testified on behalf of the objectors, and including with a neighbor in the building in which she lived (p. 32, s. 8 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022). It was not argued, and as stated above, that the deceased was isolated in any way, or that any of the plaintiffs prevented her from being in contact with others or prevented others from being in contact with her, certainly not at the time of the drafting of the will.
- To the aforesaid rule, it should be added that the notary also placed in his testimony the reason that the deceased chose to dispossess the objector and the deceased son and bequeath her entire estate to the plaintiffs, by the fact that the deceased believed that the plaintiffs' situation justified the assistance, while the deceased son and the objector were "in order".
Contrary to the argument of the opponents that the plaintiff influenced the deceased due to his dispute with the deceased son, the notary testified that although the deceased knew about the dispute, it had nothing to do with the provisions of the will, which, according to the notary's testimony, is related only to the financial situation of the deceased's children. The notary testified that he was aware of the disconnect between the deceased son and the deceased and also knew details about the relationship between the objector and the deceased, but claimed that he was prevented from mentioning it since these are details that are protected by the confidentiality of a client's attorney. (p. 14, paras. 4-26 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).