Estate Case (Nazareth) 64800-10-20 G.S. v. 1 Y.A. - part 4

Attorney F.  also testified:

1. Can you tell me about your ability to communicate with her?
2. She was very opinionated, she had an Iraqi accent I think, she had a strong voice and she was very assertive and unequivocal. I'm speaking from my memory

See page 3 of the transcript, lines 16-18 . 

The test of dependence and assistance between the beneficiary and the testator:

55. As it emerges from the evidence and the testimonies of the parties, the deceased did indeed need the plaintiff's help, mainly in the period after the stroke and not before. From the evidence material, all the parties testify that prior to the incident, the deceased was functioning well and had no complete dependence on the plaintiff.  Son Y.    testified that he used to visit his mother and stated in his testimony:

"I'm not talking about that period.  We used to visit the whole family there on Saturdays when my mother was fine before the event."

See his testimony on page 19 of the transcript, lines 1-2 . 

56. This is also the testimony of the son A.   who said that he used to visit his mother and come to eat with her regularly both in the middle of the week and on weekends (see his testimony on page 72, lines 8-9).  Also the son A.  Y.  testified that he used to come to visit his mother on weekends and holidays.  So did son A.  Y.  Asher testified that he was with the deceased all the time: "No, no, no.  I was with her all the time.  All the time.  I did not leave my mother for a moment" (see page 83 of the transcript, lines 12-14).
57. As stated, the objectors themselves testified that they visited their deceased mother on a regular and regular basis, and they did not testify at all that the visits were conducted under her supervision or supervision or with the accompaniment or control of the plaintiff. The testimonies also indicate that each person would come to visit his deceased mother alone and without the presence of other children.  Therefore, it is not possible to determine that the deceased was dependent solely on the plaintiff.
58. From the testimonies and evidence brought before me, it appears that the relationship between the deceased and the plaintiff was a normal relationship and not close and close. It was not proven by the defendants that the plaintiff controlled the deceased, as they claimed in their objection, and that the plaintiff was the one who managed all of her affairs during the period relevant to the date of making the will, on the contrary, the evidence shows that almost all of the objectors visited the deceased and were in contact with her.  It has not been proven at all by the opponents that the plaintiff was exclusively involved in the life of the deceased, nor has it been proven at all that the deceasedwas physically dependent on her daughter, the plaintiff, to the extent that it can be assumed that her free and independent will was denied.
59. From the evidence and testimonies that were heard, it did not arise, and the defendants were unable to prove, that the deceased was largely dependent on the plaintiff. The defendants did not deny that the deceased was independent, moved around alone and did many activities on her own, without any assistance, during the period relevant to the date of making the will.
60. Above all, and without minimizing the aforementioned regularity, it is natural that the deceased, as an elderly woman, in need of assistance and assistance in the twilight of her life, would need the assistance and assistance of her beloved children or those who live near her, and the plaintiff was there like any good girl who cared for and helped her. In any event, and as I have determined above, it has not been proven that the deceased needed the plaintiff's assistance and assistance thoroughly and exclusively, and that she was completely dependent on her.

Test of the testator's relations with others other than the beneficiary according to the will:

61. In our case, and as the evidence shows, the deceased was also in contact with the defendants, even though it was not a daily relationship, but there was no separation between them. The testimonies of the parties indicate that the deceased was in contact with all the family members.
62. The evidence indicates that the deceased was also in contact with other people besides her family members, the deceased worked in a hospital, and it is also reasonable to assume that she was in contact with people at her work. It cannot be said in the situation described above that during the period relevant to the drafting of the will, the deceased was completely detached from other people or that her contacts with others were few and rare.
63. In any event, no evidence, even the slightest of it, was brought by the opponents proving that the deceased was physically dependent on the plaintiff or anyone on her behalf to the extent that it can be assumed that her free and independent will was denied as required by the ruling.

The test of the circumstances of the drafting of the will, including the degree of the beneficiary's involvement in its drafting:

64. The argument of the opponents that the plaintiff was the one who managed all the affairs of the deceased and even took advantage of her and used her money and abandoned her, had no support. The defendants' claims in this matter were made in vain and without any evidence or references.  From the testimonies of the parties, without exception, it appears that all the opponents agreed and accepted the fact that the plaintiff was responsible for the deceased, took her home for two years and took care of her, while the other objectors did not have a significant and significant role in this matter, except for visits, as they themselves testified.
65. We will learn about the circumstances of the drafting of the will from the mouth of Adv. P. who was summoned to testify and was interrogated by counsel for the parties.  I will note at this stage that the testimony of Adv. P.  She left a positive impression on me, I found no reason to doubt her, and his testimony is fully acceptable to me.  P.  He confirmed in his testimony that he drafted the will of the deceased who is the subject of the case in question and described chronologically and in detail the sequence and circumstances of the drafting of the will.
66. The opponents' argument that the plaintiff is the one who follows the will made by the deceased was also not backed up by references or evidence and was merely argued. Indeed, the plaintiff confirmed that she was the one who arranged the deceased's meeting with Adv. P., but this was done without Adv. P.'s knowledge.  P.  In his testimony before the court, he confirmed that the meeting was coordinated with his secretary and that he had no knowledge of the coordination of the meeting and who had done it, so that the plaintiff had no involvement except for setting a date.  Adv. P.  His secretary, who also testified before the court, also confirmed that the plaintiff was not present at the office of attorney P.  When the will of the deceased was drafted.
67. P. and his secretary, who greeted the deceased, testified about the course of the meeting that took place when the deceased arrived at the office for the purpose of signing the will.  The secretary testified that this was the first will in which she served as a witness, and therefore she remembered the event and the encounter that took place between her and the deceased.  The secretary confirmed that the deceased arrived at the office alone and that no one was waiting for her later in the waiting room.  The secretary confirmed that the deceased informed her that she had come to the matter of the will and also confirmed that the deceased had spoken to her in Hebrew before entering the room of Attorney P.  Her testimony on the matter was as follows:

Q:          What happened? Who sat while they talked to her about a will?