Estate Case (Tel Aviv) 56476-01-24 Anonymous v. Anonymous

1. The deceased ******* died on the day *******when he was only **** years old.
2. The Applicant is the widow of the deceased and she is petitioning for an inheritance order that will determine that she inherits her share of the deceased's estate, in accordance with the Inheritance Law.
3. The respondents are all children of the deceased, they oppose the application and claim that the applicant is not entitled to inherit any part of the deceased's estate.
4. The applicant and the deceased were married in the State of ****** in a marriage ******on the ***** day, as predicted from the marriage certificate attached to the file. In addition, the Applicant refers to her Israeli identity card from ****** in which it is recorded that she is currently a widow.  In addition, the Applicant refers to a document from the National Insurance Institute from ******* in which the Institute confirms that the Applicant is receiving a survivor's pension as of ******.
5. The respondents do not deny that the applicant is the widow of their deceased father. Their letter of claims, which was filed on February 26, 2024, entitled "Letter of Objection to the Application for an Inheritance Order", indicates that the Applicant and the deceased were married, but according to the Respondents, the marriage was only on paper and the couple was separated, as detailed in paragraph 3 of the objection: "The Applicant and the Respondent remained married only on paper, when in fact they were separated for all intents and purposes, and the date of the rupture between the parties was even before the death of the deceased."
6. In paragraph 50 of the objection, the respondents reiterate their claim that the applicant and the deceased were married on paper, in a purely registered, technical manner.
7. Therefore, according to the respondents, the applicant is not entitled to inherit the deceased. In support of their claims, the respondents refer to various judgments.  Thus, for example, we refer to the judgment of the Honorable Judge Ron Sokol of the Haifa District Court.  In my opinion, this judgment is irrelevant to the issue before me, since it relates to the question of the balance of resources between spouses, married but separated, a different question from the one before me, when the relevant question relates to inheritance law and not to the balance of resources between spouses.  The respondents refer to additional rulings, mainly rulings of the various family courts.  The respondents also refer to the judgment in the Sabag case, but in my opinion, the respondents quote from the Sabag judgment given in the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal 247/97, the judgment was given on May 30, 1999) a passage that is not relevant to the issue before me and is not relevant to the outcome of that judgment.
8. As stated above, there is no dispute from the arguments of the parties that the applicant and the deceased were married at the time of the deceased's death.
9. There is also no dispute that on November 25, 2021, the Applicant and the deceased signed a one-page document on which content is printed in Hebrew and Russian. In Hebrew, the document reads as follows:

"The Geltmani Agreement