Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 42471-05-24 Anonymous vs. Anonymous - part 7

The appellants, in their reply to the respondent's arguments, repeat their arguments in the notice of appeal and reject the respondent's arguments.  According to them, the provision of clause 15.14 of the prenuptial agreement is clear and cannot be interpreted: it deals with a situation in which the man will pass away during the course of the joint life and states that then full ownership of the investment apartment will pass to the respondent, with this reference "overriding all the provisions of the will".  Therefore, this is not a partial gift given in life.  The fact that there are other clauses in the prenuptial agreement to which the Respondent referres, according to which, over the years, the Respondent acquires rights in the investment apartment, is irrelevant to our case, where, in light of the short marriage period of 25 days, clauses 15.14 and 15.19 of the agreement apply, and it is clear that this is a purely hereditary provision.  The same applies to the registration of a warning note, which is not at all relevant to the situation in this case, to which only the provisions of sections 15.14 and 15.19 of the prenuptial agreement apply.  Therefore, the transfer of a hearing place given in the Nachshon case does not help the Respondent, but rather the opposite.  In the transfer of a place of discussion, it was determined that a distinction must be made between a gift that is given immediately (which is permitted and does not contradict section 8(b) of the Inheritance Law) and a gift given after the death of the giver (which is not permitted), and in our case there is no doubt from the language of the provision of section 15.14 that it is a post-death grant.  According to the appellants, the respondent in its arguments did not deal with the ruling in the tax appeal 7468/11 Anonymous v.  Anonymous (published in Nevo, July 3, 2012).  Hereinafter: The Anonymous Case) whereby it is not possible to include in the prenuptial agreement a "hereditary" provision of an asset that will apply after the death of the spouse, nor with the ruling of this composition given in Family Appeal 31306-01-19 Anonymous et al.  v.  Anonymous (published in Nevo, February 5, 2020), which dealt with another case of granting rights at the time of death in a prenuptial agreement.