The plaintiffs' claims:
- With regard to the deceased's kashrut, the plaintiffs claim that the claim was raised in a general and vague manner and that the onus is on the opponents to prove the claim. The opponents refrained from presenting any data regarding the deceased's physical or mental condition at the time of signing the will, and claimed that the notary's certificate indicates her competence.
- With regard to the deceased's signature on the will, it was argued that in a will before an authority, there is no obligation that the testator sign the will, and that the claim of forgery is an allegation of a criminal offense by the notary public that must be proven at the level required to prove a criminal offense.
- With regard to the deceased's understanding, it was argued that the deceased spoke, understood, read and wrote in Hebrew, and that even the burden of proving that the deceased did not "hear" Hebrew rests with the opponents.
- With regard to the claims regarding the dependence of the deceased, the plaintiffs claimed that the deceased was completely independent and functioned independently in her apartment, and that although she was not a long-distance mobile because she did not drive, she was not confined to her bed or restricted in leaving her apartment where she functioned completely independently. According to them, the deceased's children, and especially the plaintiff, used to drive the deceased and accompany her, as is customary in parent-child relationships.
- In addition, it was claimed that the separation between the deceased and the deceased son was caused by the deceased's son's demand that the deceased make a will and bequeath all of her property to him. The plaintiffs claim that the deceased replied to the deceased's son that she was not willing to do so and would not come to him again. The plaintiffs deny that the dispute between the plaintiff and the deceased's son was the motive for drafting the will and claim that the deceased did not take a position in this dispute even though she knew about it.
It was further argued that there was no impediment that the deceased would change her will over the years, and certainly after the death of the deceased son.