In this context, it should be noted that the claim regarding the motive for unfair influence rooted in the dispute between the plaintiff and the deceased son does not explain why the objector was dispossessed. In addition, the claim of unfair influence was raised, as stated, specifically against the plaintiff, and there is no explanation as to why the plaintiff was not also dispossessed as a result of that unfair influence. Leaving the deceased's estate to the plaintiffs actually supports the notary's testimony that the deceased's motive was the need to assist the plaintiffs vis-à-vis the objector and the deceased son, who in the deceased's opinion did not need similar assistance.
The notary's testimony was also supported by the testimony of the opposing man, who confirmed that the deceased saw the plaintiffs as "poor" and that "she even saw the dispute with my father as something that was Gowald for my uncle, as if the end of the world had come, both his and (the plaintiff's). Today when you think about it, looking back at it... Just (the plaintiff) is poor, (the plaintiff) left his job, my father was always the one who had a big business, thank God he always got along, he has 3 children, thank God, I am proud to say this, three children are all successful, (the opponent) for the same mandate as well... Her husband works in ..., an engineer, his children are very successful, there are two poor people who need to be taken care of. (The plaintiff) That her husband left her and ran away from her and left her everything, just ran away, ran away from her at the age of 18 and the most symbolic day in life that his second daughter was 18 years old and one day he ran away like a missile, left a house in... He has nothing to eat, he has to take care of them... It is always the poor who are always the poor" (p. 33, paras. 5-21 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022).
Although the objector denied that the deceased treated the plaintiffs as poor, she noted in her testimony in this context that "she was brainwashed..." (p. 65, paras. 7-29 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022). However, despite this testimony, the objector testified that she herself wanted to give the plaintiff her share of the inheritance and also testified that her husband also took care of the plaintiff (p. 66, paras. 1-4 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022), which prima facie indicates a need to assist the plaintiff and which also supports the fact that the deceased also saw the need to assist the plaintiff.
- From all of the above, it was proven that there was no presumption of unfair influence, and in any event, it was proven that the will was not drawn up under the unfair influence of the plaintiffs or any of them.
- When all of the objections' arguments were rejected, and after I was convinced beyond a doubt that the will fully and clearly reflects the will of the deceased, I found myself thankful for the rejection of the objection.
Conclusion:
- The objection is rejected.
The request for an order to execute the will is granted. A probate order will be issued in a separate document.