___________________
Shaul Shohat, Judge
Vice President, Presiding Judge
Judge Einat Ravid:
I agree.
__________________
Einat Ravid, Judge
Judge Naftali Shilo:
I agree with the words of my colleague, the presiding judge, Judge Shohat.
Even according to my position in Family Appeal 31306-01-19 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo] (February 5, 2020), in which I interpreted a clause in a prenuptial agreement according to which the wife received the fruits of an asset even after the death of her husband, as one that should be regarded as part of the wife's property rights and not as an inheritance provision, in the present case it is clear that the provision in section 15.14 of the prenuptial agreement is a clear hereditary provision, which contradicts the provision of section 8 of the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: Section 8).
Indeed, according to consistent and long-standing case law, the provisions of section 8 should be interpreted in a restrictive manner (see: Civil Appeal 4009/22 Noam Katz v. Shelly Ben Attia [Nevo] (October 18, 2023)).
Clause 15.14 of the prenuptial agreement stipulates that "full ownership of the investment apartment shall pass in full to the woman" in the event that "the husband passes away." The parties went further and determined that: "It should be emphasized that this undertaking is final and irrevocable, which will prevail over any provision of a will and will constitute a debt of the man to the woman even after death."
The wording of this section is clear and unambiguous. The parties wanted to give the provision of this section the force of a will and therefore determined that it would prevail over any other provision of the will. This is a provision that will apply only after the death of the man, a gift due to death, and in light of the legislature's decree in section 8, it has no effect.
Therefore, in my opinion, too, the appeal should be granted.