(emphasis added).
- It should be noted that the expert was presented with additional medical material from the deceased's last place of stay in the long-term care hospital in ***, documents that were not placed before him when he prepared his opinion. In the medical documentation from the Nursing Hospital in ***, recurring situations of extreme apathy, lack of interest in the environment, and inability to communicate verbally were documented. In these documents, it was even explicitly stated that the deceased was unable to express his will or make his own judgment. W., dated May 31, 2025, strengthened these conclusions. The expert clarified that there was no stage in the relevant period in which the deceased could be seen as cognitively competent to make a will or to understand its legal significance. The expert noted that the deceased's cognitive decline was continuous and irreversible.
- Two evidentiary hearings were held in the case. At the first meeting on July 2, 2025, the two witnesses of the will, Mr. N.K. and Mr. M.K., and in the hearing on July 20, 2025, the expert was questioned about his opinion. It should be noted that both the Applicant and the Respondent were not interrogated. It should also be noted that the deceased also submitted an affidavit of main testimony on her behalf, but due to her death, it was not possible to question her about her affidavit. The parties submitted written summaries and now the time has come to decide the claim.
The Applicant's arguments:
- First, the Applicant petitions to order the rejection of the Respondent's objection, since no lawful power of attorney was presented on behalf of the Respondent throughout the entire proceeding authorizing his son to represent him in this proceeding. According to her, the power of attorney that was presented was unlawful and in practice the respondent's counsel is not authorized to represent the respondent in this proceeding. According to her, no power of attorney was presented on behalf of the respondent that delegates his power of attorney for representation through his son.
- The Applicant claims that the deceased orally bequeathed his estate to the deceased, who was his neighbor and took care of him, and that the Applicant inherited her rights. According to her, the will of the deceased was made before the two witnesses, Mr. N.K. and Mr. M.K., on different occasions, and it reflects the true will of the deceased.
Copied from Nevo
- The Applicant argues that according to the affidavits of the witnesses, the memorandum of understanding and the affidavit of the deceased, and in light of the fact that the witnesses who met the deceased and heard from him what he commanded, there is no doubt that the oral will, which was told to them by the deceased, when the deceased was closely acquainted with the neighbor, and when he was in a very serious state of health and on the verge of death, a probate order should be accepted and a probate order should be issued for a will made orally by the deceased.
- The Applicant admits that the memorandum of understanding was signed after the death of the deceased, and that the will was not delivered by the deceased to the two witnesses together, but argues that this does not prejudice the veracity of the will, in accordance with section 25 of the Inheritance Law. According to her, in the circumstances of the case, the conditions for the existence of an oral will of a person who is lying ill are met.
- The Applicant claims that the medical expert's opinion is erroneous, is not based on all the relevant medical material, and her conclusions are not anchored in solid evidence. The Applicant argues that there are serious flaws in the expert's version and that his opinion cannot be relied upon. According to her, there was room for the expert to review and read the affidavit of the witnesses, and his opinion should have referred to their testimonies. According to her, the expert referred to the will as a written will and not as an oral will. The Applicant argues that there was no place at the outset for his opinion to be submitted without receiving the deceased's medical material from the Saudi Hospital at ***. The Applicant also claims that the medical material of *** was transferred to him with all the material and it is not clear why he did not refer to this material in his first opinion.
- The Applicant argues that the expert's conclusions are not anchored in evidence and are based on the expert's hypotheses and on a problematic approach and even negligence on the part of the expert. The Applicant argues that the expert's opinion should be disqualified, or alternatively, the court should order the appointment of a new expert.
The Respondent's arguments:
- The respondent strongly opposes the execution of the will orally. According to him, the will does not meet the cumulative conditions set forth in section 23 of the Inheritance Law, and that it has material defects that cannot be cured. The respondent emphasizes that the burden of proof of the existence of a will lies entirely on the applicant, and that in the case before the court, the basic elements of the will were not fulfilled, and that it had multiple and substantial defects that could not be cured in any way and in any form.
- The respondent argues that the memorandum of understanding was not drawn up close to the drafting of the alleged will and that it was drawn up long after the deceased's death. The respondent adds that the memorandum came out only when the application for probate of the will was filed. The Respondent argues that the memorandum of understanding was not deposited with the Inheritance Registrar as required by the provisions of section 23 of the Inheritance Law. According to the Respondent, the wording and language of the memorandum do not include statements that meet the definition of an oral will of a deceased person. The memorandum of understanding was not drawn up close to the alleged will and was not deposited with the Inheritance Registrar. According to the respondent, the circumstances and dates of the drafting and signing of the memorandum raise serious doubt as to the veracity of its contents.
- The Respondent argues that the two witnesses who signed the memorandum of understanding were not present at the same time on the dates of the alleged testament, which constitutes a defect that impairs the validity of the alleged will, since this requirement is material and cannot be overcome by virtue of the provisions of section 25 of the Inheritance Law. According to the respondent, the testator's statements, which are proven, were supposed to be in front of the two witnesses and not each separately, while both the memoir and the affidavits of the witnesses' main testimony indicate that the two were not present together before the deceased.
- The respondent claims that the deceased was mentally and cognitively unfit to staff on the alleged dates, and that he suffered from advanced dementia. The respondent relies on the opinion of the medical expert, who determined that the deceased did not have the legal capacity to make a will, after he comprehensively examined and examined all of the deceased's medical material close to the relevant period of drafting the alleged will.
- The Respondent further argues that the witnesses on behalf of the Applicant are not reliable, their testimonies are full of contradictions and are inconsistent with the objective evidence, including the medical documents. He notes that the memorandum was drawn up long after the death of the deceased, drafted by the applicant's counsel, and was not deposited as required by law.
The normative framework: