Estate Case (Nazareth) 64800-10-20 G.S. v. 1 Y.A. - part 6

A: I went in, Adv. Y.  F.  introduced the deceased to me, we identified her by the ID card I had taken, then he read the will to me and her in Hebrew and after he finished reading it he asked her if she was sure she wanted to bequeath to G.  S.  asked her all the time, asked several times if she was sure that she had more children, and at a certain point she got angry and said it was my property and I would do whatever I wanted with it.

See page 43 of the transcript, lines 12-17 . 

69. P. In his testimony, he stated that he asked the deceased several times if she was sure that she wanted to bequeath all her property to her daughter, the plaintiff, and the deceased answered yes.  Adv. P.  He also testified that he asked her if she wanted to give to the other children.  Adv. P.  He also testified that at a certain point and after repeating these questions, the deceased became angry.  Due to the importance of the matter, I see fit to quote a large part of the testimony of Adv. F.:
70. I ask about the drafting of the will. Rest has come to you, tell us what happened.
71. She came in to me, sat down, I asked her what she wanted to do and what she wanted to write in the will, and she told me, "I want to give everything I have, all my share of the apartment, the money and everything I have to my daughter G."
72. Did she say the word will?
73. Yes.
74. Did she say "my rights"?
75. She said, "My part." I told her out of personal knowledge that she had 10 children and why she wanted to give only to G. And she said to me unequivocally, "I want to give everything I have in this world to G." I tried to find out why, and when I repeated it if I understood her correctly, I told her that no one of her children would inherit you, only G.
76. Did you say heir?
77. Yes. Then she told me again "I do what I want", she said it unequivocally, even a little angrily, "I decide who to give to and I know exactly what I want".
78. Who was present in the room with you at this time?
79. Only me. I asked more than once and more than twice if she was sure of it and she said "I am sure and I will do what I feel and what I want".  It's hard for me to recall another case when someone was so focused and so unequivocal as in this case, that's why I remember the meeting, she was really angry with me as well.
80. What else did you talk about? Did she give you the details of a block, plot, etc.?
81. No. I think I had the previous inheritance order that I made. I also asked her if anyone was influencing her and she told me "no, I decide" and let me understand that I had nothing more to ask her.  She was very sharp and unequivocal.

See page 6 of the transcript, lines 3-24 . 

70. Later in his interrogation, he testified:
71. How do you make the will, do you have records, you do it by hand, print it straight?
72. I have screens of a will, a skeleton, and then I add the specific things, clauses if necessary.
73. Do you type physically?
74. No. I write, I pass it on to the clerk, she types it, I proofread it, and if I need to correct it again, I correct it again.
75. Did she read the will?
76. I called her.
77. And did she understand every word?
78. Yes, and I also asked her if she understood, and she told me yes. Towards the end of the meeting, she was a little angry with me for asking her so many times.
79. And all this in Hebrew?
80. Yes.

See page 7 of the transcript, lines 18-30 . 

71. P. He also testified that he knew the deceased prior to the drafting of the will from a previous handling of the deceased's husband's file, when he drafted an inheritance order.  Adv. P.  He also stated that he had the details regarding the identity of the apartment from the previous file he handled.  Also regarding the payment, Adv. P.  He testified that he only paid the person who drafted the will, so that even in the matter of the payment of rent, the plaintiff was not involved at all.
72. P.'s version With regard to the circumstances of the drafting and signing of the will, including his explanations of the deceased, I have gained my trust and I accept it. I found no reason to doubt his testimony, and no evidence was brought on behalf of those who objected to the refutation.  From this testimony of Attorney P.  and his secretary, it is explicitly stated that Adv. P.  He acted properly in drafting a will, he met alone with the deceased, prepared the will in accordance with the express wishes of the deceased, read and explained the contents of the will to the deceased, and she signed it after she understood what she was signing.
73. The testimony of Adv. P., which I accept, is reliable testimony and reflects what happened when the will was drafted and the deceased's signature on the will proves that the plaintiff had no involvement in the drafting of the will. P.  He testified that the plaintiff did not contact him at all, that the deceased was the one who came to him at the office and asked to make a will for her, and this testimony strengthens the plaintiff's version as well as the court's conclusion, according to which the plaintiff was not involved in the drafting of the will and the provisions of section 35 of the Inheritance Law are not met.
74. Even if we assume that there was indeed a previous acquaintance between the plaintiff and since she was the one who set the date of the meeting and perhaps also brought the deceased to the office of Adv. P. For the purpose of drafting the will, there is nothing in the prior acquaintance between the plaintiff and Adv. P., and this does not indicate any involvement in the drafting of the will; Moreover, even if we assume that the plaintiff was the one who contacted Adv. P.  For the purpose of drafting a will, this in itself does not constitute taking part in its drafting, as determined in the case law.
75. I accept the plaintiff's version as consistent, reliable andpersuasive. The plaintiff was not involved at all in the drafting of the will, she did not offer the deceased to make a will and was not present at any stage of the drafting of the will.  Reinforcement for you is found in the testimony of Adv. F., whose testimony clearly shows that the deceased herself approached him for the purpose of drafting a will, and for this purpose she met with him, in the presence of the secretary who also met, saw and spoke about the deceased.
76. From the hearing of the parties, and in particular the hearing of the testimony of Adv. P. and the secretary, who are the witnesses of the will, witnesses who are neutral and their testimony is independent, and when we are dealing with consistent and reliable testimonies that reflect the sequence of circumstances of the drafting of the will as well as the situation of the deceased at the time of drafting the will, I found it necessary to give these testimonies decisive weight with regard to the circumstances of the drafting of the will and the absence of the plaintiff's involvement in the drafting of the will.
77. I am convinced that there was no defect or impropriety in the process of drafting the will itself, especially with regard to the plaintiff's involvement in its drafting. P.  He drafted the will in accordance with the deceased's instructions and after writing it, and before signing it, he read and explained its contents to it.  I am of the opinion that the independent judgment of Adv. P., the direct connection created between him and the deceased is sufficient to sever any connection between the involvement of the plaintiff or anyone on her behalf, if any, in the proceedings that preceded the signing of the will and the stage of drafting and signing the will by the deceased.  The defendants failed to prove involvement on the part of the plaintiff or anyone on her behalf that could lead to the invalidation of the will by virtue of the provision of section 35 of the Inheritance Law.
78. It did not emerge from the evidence presented to me that the plaintiff took part in the drafting of the will or that my actions amounted to improper involvement, and also harmed the free will of the deceased. From all the aggregate, it emerges that the defendants have not been able to lift the burden imposed on them for the purpose of proving that there was a defect in the making of the will and/or in the process of approving it, which could lead to its invalidation.  I am persuaded that the will reflects the will of the deceased and that the plaintiff did not take part in its drafting, and therefore I order the rejection of the defendantYam's claim of unfair influence.

I will now examine the argument of the opponents regarding the deceased's knowledge of the Hebrew language:

79. Taking into account the testimonies of the defendants, the testimony of the plaintiff, and in particular the testimony of Adv. P. and the Secretary, I determine, that the defendants did not prove their version regarding the deceased's lack of command of the Hebrew language.  As stated, the argument of the deceased's lack of understanding of the Hebrew language was raised by the opponents, and therefore the burden of proof is on them to prove that indeed the deceased did not speak or understand the Hebrew language, but they did not meet this burden.
80. First, and without any connection to the arguments of the parties, and since I have determined that the testimonies of Adv. P. and reliable secretaries, consistent and reflective of the true picture, even with regard to their testimony regarding the deceased's knowledge of the Hebrew language, I found it acceptable to accept their position and to determine that the deceased did indeed speak and understood the Hebrew language, an understanding that would have been sufficient for the purpose of drafting, understanding and signing the will.
81. Second, the secretary testified before the court regarding the circumstances of the drafting of the will, including the conversation she had with the deceased when she arrived at the office, since she was the first to receive it. The secretary testified that the language in which the deceased was engaged in the office at the time of her arrival was Hebrew.  The secretary also testified that the deceased spoke Hebrew fluently (see page 42 of the transcript, lines 1-3).  The secretary testified and confirmed that at the time of signing the will, when she was present in Adv. P.'s room, the conversation with the deceased was conducted in Hebrew.  The testimony of the witness indicates that the deceased spoke only Hebrew and not any other language when a conversation took place between her and the deceased, and she even testified that the deceased spoke fluent Hebrew and that her testimony was as follows:

"She spoke fluent Hebrew, Adv. P.  He asked her several times about the will if she was sure that she wanted to bequeath everything to her daughter and she told him that she did, and at a certain point she got upset and said what is mine and I decide."