Family file (Petah Tikva) 62456-02-26 S. S. v. Y. T. et al.

Judgment

Introduction and Background in Summary

1. This decision concerns the two proceedings in the heading.
2. The parties in the family case 62456-02-26 - hereinafter "the first proceeding", are 2 brothers (the plaintiff and defendant 1) and their mother (defendant 2), and therefore the plaintiff will be called "the brother", the defendant 1 will be called "the sister" and the defendant 2 will be called "the mother".
3. The parties in the custody 22236-03-26 - hereinafter "the second proceeding", are the brother (the plaintiff), the sister and 4 other brothers (defendants 3-6), while under the parties to the proceeding it is registered "in the matter of the mother".
4. The first proceeding is a claim by the brother for declaratory relief - cancellation of rights in the land, against the sister and the mother, when the land that is the subject of the proceeding is a building with 5 apartments, B-----, known as a block ---- plot -- (hereinafter: the "Property") registered in the sister's ownership.
5. The property was owned by the mother and transferred to the sister's ownership, on June 22, 2022, in accordance with a gift agreement/affidavit signed between the mother and the sister (hereinafter: the "Gift Agreement"). According to the brother, the property was transferred to the sister unlawfully, in the absence of the mother's free and conscious discretion, and therefore the agreement should be cancelled and therefore the registration of the sister's rights in the property and the return of ownership to the mother should be canceled.  To complete the picture, it should be noted that in one of the apartments in the property where the brother lives, and in parallel to this proceeding, there is another proceeding, a claim for usage fees, filed by the sister against the brother.
6. The second proceeding is a claim by the brother for the appointment of a guardian in addition to the one stipulated in an enduring power of attorney signed by the mother. In this proceeding, the brother petitions to be appointed as an additional guardian for all of the mother's affairs.
7. The enduring power of attorney was signed by the mother on December 16, 2021, before Adv. Tal Pomerantz Lavi, and was deposited with the Registrar on December 19, 2021. In the enduring power of attorney, the mother appointed the sister as the guardian of all her affairs (hereinafter: the "Power of Attorney").  At the time the claim was filed, the power of attorney was not activated.
8. This decision concerns the sister's request to delete the two proceedings in the heading, out of hand. The defendants in the second proceeding, with the exception of defendant 6 represented by the sister's attorney, did not file anything.
9. On July 15, 2026, a hearing was held in the presence of the brother, sister and mother (hereinafter: "the parties"), in the two proceedings under the title, in which the mother gave preliminary testimony. The parties agreed to submit summaries in the sister's request to delete the proceedings, and these were submitted.

The mother's testimony

10. On July 15, 2026, the mother was questioned. The mother's testimony indicates that:
11. The mother goes to the market, to cafes, rides the bus, drives as she wishes, and does whatever she wants.
12. What the sister has done and is doing for the benefit of the mother and for the benefit of another brother, disabled, no one is doing.

• From the moment the brother heard that the mother had given the property to the sister, he began to get angry with the mother and confiscate her, to the point that he did not invite her to family events.

1. The mother is angry with the brother because he hasn't spoken to her for 3 years, and she thinks it all started since her daughter-in-law came into life.
2. The mother didn't remember how many wills she made, but she knew how to say that she was (still) alive, and she could make as many wills as she wanted.
3. The mother went to Prof. Fenig to get a medical opinion so that they wouldn't say she was okay afterwards.

• The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The mother gave the sister, her owner, the property and the brother the possibility of living in the apartment for the rest of their lives.
• 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)Did she insist that she has a mind, no one will tell her what to do and no one will decide for her, not the sister or the brother, what to do with her assets, and in her words, "She will not determine for me, here I will tell you, I will tell you by the side of all of you, no one will decide for me, no one, And no one will interfere in my life.  It's my money, it's my apartments, " and later on, "She won't decide for me, I decide, I have a mind, thank God."

11. The testimony clearly showed that this was a witness/litigant who understood everything that was being asked of her, who was aware of the legal process, and even hurt him greatly, who remembered everything that happened and what was done, and who insisted that no one decided for her and would not decide what to do. Moreover, the mother provided the court with an accurate explanation for each and every action she took, and reiterated that not only did she give the property to the sister of her free will and with clear intent, but she also wanted everything to remain hers today, while explaining her anger at the brother.

Normative outline

12. Provisions regarding the manner of disposing of a claim in limine and when the court is required to do so are regulated in Regulations 41-45 of the Civil Procedure Regulations - 5779-2018 (hereinafter: the "SDA Regulations"). Article 41 states that:

")a) The court may order the dismissal of a statement of claim at any time on one of the following grounds: