The plaintiff claimed that the deceased was opinionated with clear desires and had no influence on her in any way. The plaintiff did not control her, but rather helped her, just as he also helped his late father, especially in traveling.
- With regard to the notary, it was claimed that the deceased had known the deceased since he was a child, when he was a friend of the deceased son. The deceased had known the notary public and his parents for many years, and later he also served as the deceased son's lawyer.
The plaintiffs claim that it was indeed the plaintiff who drove the deceased, but that the purpose of the trip was to join the plaintiff as a partner in the deceased's two accounts, and that before the operation was carried out, the deceased told the plaintiff that she wished to go up to the notary's office and that he would wait for her in his car or in a nearby café. The deceased went up alone to the notary's office, and after the meeting and the arrangements at the bank, the plaintiff returned the deceased to her home. The plaintiff claims that the deceased did not tell him about the purpose of the meeting.
Discussion and Decision:
Validity of the deceased and her signature on the will
- First of all, and with regard to the claims regarding the deceased's competence and the authenticity of the signature on the will, as stated above, these are claims that were made in a general and vague manner, and no detailed argument was raised in the objection regarding the deceased's physical condition or regarding comparisons between the deceased's signature on the will and other signatures of the deceased. Subsequently, there was also no petition for the appointment of an expert to examine the deceased's competence at the time of making the will or for the purpose of comparing her signature on the will with other signatures.
Only in the framework of cross-examination did the objector testify that he doubted the authenticity of the signature due to the fact that the signature was in Hebrew (pp. 29, paras. 3-5 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022), but this argument was contradicted by the testimony of the objector, who testified that the deceased signed in Hebrew "because she knew Yiddish, these are the same letters..." (p. 51, paras. 28-31 of the minutes of the hearing of June 9, 2022).
- The halacha is that "... There is a presumption that a person who is fit for legal actions - including the making of a will - and a presumption of a testator that at the time of making his will he knew how to discern the nature of a will. One who claims that at the time of making a will, the testator did not know how to discern the nature of a will - he has the burden of proving his claim..."
"A person is considered to be able to discern the nature of a will if, at the time of drafting the will, he understood that he was signing a will; He understood that he was giving his property and to whom he was giving it; He knew the extent of his property; And he was aware of the expectations of those he was doing good to and those he was excluding from his will. The expression "did not know how to discern the nature of a will" is therefore a general guideline, the purpose of which is to examine whether the testator was aware of the nature of his actions and their consequences. Indeed, it was held that in this context it is possible to take into account the testator's awareness that he made a will, his knowledge of the extent of his property and his heirs, and his awareness of the consequences of making the will vis-à-vis his heirs."