It follows from this that the deceased was not independent, the physical condition of the deceased, who was 79 years old at the time of the alleged signing of the gift agreement, required full reliance on the help of others in carrying out all daily activities, including everything related to her mobility. Attached to the plaintiff's exhibits was a certificate drawn up on January 20, 2014 by Prof. Ilan Greenwald, a urology expert, who discussed the physical condition of the deceased and determined that she could be flown with the help of an escort. In that document, there is no reference at all to her cognitive state. Therefore, I determine that the deceased was completely and thoroughly dependent on the plaintiff and Yaffa z"l.
Resting relationships with others:
- The evidence showed that the deceased left the defendant's home at her request due to a dispute that arose with her. At the time, when the deceased was in the apartment, the plaintiff's testimony did not indicate that any of the other relatives visited her or were in contact with her, with the exception of the late Yaffa z"l and his sister Eleanor, who used to come on weekends. This conduct reached a climax, when after the deceased's return to London, the defendant demanded in 2018 to know the whereabouts of the deceased. In a WhatsApp message sent by the defendant to the plaintiff's sister, Eleanor, which was attached to Eleanor's affidavit, she wrote:
Therefore, the evidence presented provides a basis for the determination that the plaintiff and the late Yaffe isolated the deceased from the rest of the family.
The Counseling Test:
- The circumstances of the alleged gift also substantiate the claim of dependency. The document was drafted by lawyers commissioned by the plaintiff (See the testimony of Adv. Shai Cohen, p. 3). The attorneys who handled the alleged gift transaction represented the late Yaffe when they dealt with the entire issue of her departure with the deceased to London, since at that time she was in an insolvency proceeding (pp. 26, 28-34). On the other hand, the testimony of Attorney Ofer Ron was brought, who testified that the deceased had known him since his studies in London, in the years 1987-1989, as a client of his father's firm. He also testified that he thinks he met her in his father's office when he was a child (see p44 ). In addition, he testified that he joined his father's firm as an attorney in 1993, and that the deceased would come to the firm (sporadic times) and sit with his father, but he was not interested in any matter, since she was not a major client in the firm. The witness's father died in 2017, and Attorney Ofer Ron stated that he was not aware of any dispute between the deceased and his father in 2013. However, Adv. Ron did not know whether the deceased worked with other lawyers or only with his father, although in his estimation the deceased had no business that would justify working with another lawyer. Although Adv. Ofer Ron cannot testify with certainty whether the deceased was treated by other lawyers, I accept his testimony that she was a client of the firm for many years. In addition, the defendant testified that the will was drafted by the late Adv. Raanan Ron. However, the main thing is that the legal advice that the deceased received was that of the plaintiff's lawyers. On the other hand, the plaintiff did not bring any evidence to support the claim that the deceased was being treated by other lawyers.
Independence in decision-making?
- The evidence indicated that during the period when the deceased was in the apartment under the supervision of the plaintiff and Yaffe, she did not make the decisions herself, but it was the plaintiff who made the decision for her. Thus, for example, from the plaintiff's testimony it emerged that the deceased wanted to return to England after a month's stay in Israel. According to him, the deceased wanted to return to England after "This month" (p. 26, s. 29), and he refers to after the month in which she stayed with the defendant and her ex-husband (p. 26, s. 4-6). As he puts it: "And at the time, she wanted to go back to England, because she didn't like being here. She never liked being here." (p. 26, paras. 22-23). Therefore, keeping the deceased in the apartment for several months is against the wishes of the deceased and was a decision of the plaintiff.
The physical conditions of the apartment:
- The evidence also showed that the physical conditions in the apartment in which the deceased was housed were unsuitable, and the apartment was unfit for habitation. Those improper conditions create a more tangible dependence of the deceased on the plaintiff and Yaffe z"l. Regarding the condition of the apartment, the plaintiff testified as follows (pp. 24, paras. 20-22):
At p. 24, para. 33:
- In slightly different circumstances, which the Supreme Court viewed as unfair influence, the Ehrenstein case was discussed. As stated, the creditor was not fluent in Hebrew but in Yiddish. She was an elderly woman with illnesses, and at the time of her signature she was supposed to be housed by the beneficiaries of the will in a public nursing home, even though her financial situation allowed her to live in a nursing home where the level of welfare was commensurate with her financial ability. The Supreme Court held:
"Regarding the condition of the deceased on May 1, 1981, even before she was taken to the respondents' home, the social worker, Mrs. Esperance Cohen, writes that the deceased "depends on this mine, Mrs. Raz," and in the summary it is stated that "in light of the above, and since Ms. Singel is a lonely widow, hearing impaired and unable to take care of her daily needs, even though she is still able to walk freely, she must be arranged in an institution as soon as possible." If we add to this the statement that after she was brought to the respondents' home, the deceased was left without a home of her own to return to, and the state of health of the deceased at the time she made the will, then there is no room to ignore the well-founded concern that the deceased developed mental and physical dependence on the respondents to the point that her free will was denied, and the conclusion in these circumstances that the will was made only as a token of gratitude. is not the only conclusion." (emphasis mine-A.K.)