On behalf of the defendant, affidavits were also submitted by Ms. A.Z., the defendant's wife (hereinafter also - A); Ms. A. N., the defendant's sister-in-law (hereinafter also - A), M. and Y.M. In addition, the defendant summoned the witnesses of the will, Adv. B. and Mr. Y., as well as Adv. G. (decision of April 20,2025).
- Two evidentiary hearings were held on July 6,2025 and July 7,2025, during which interrogations were heard by G. (pp. 8-13), Adv. B. (pp. 13-15), Mr. Y. (pp. 15-16), M. (pp. 16-17), Y.M. (pp. 17-18), the defendant (pp. 18-20), H. (pp. 20-21), S. (pp. 21-24), Plaintiff 2 (pp. 25-29). A. (pp. 29-30), A. (pp. 30-32), D. (pp. 32-33), plaintiff 1 (pp. 35-40).
It should be noted that the plaintiffs waived the testimony of S. V. An affidavit was removed from the file (decision of July 6,2025, p. 34).
- The parties have submitted summaries; the judgment has now been rendered.
The parties' arguments
- The opponent of the execution of the late will argues that:
- The provisions in dispute are a mistake; the deceased did not want and did not intend to order in the late will, the property in Nes Ziona; Had the deceased been aware of these provisions and/or their legal implications, he would not have signed the late will; Had it not been for the mistake, the deceased would have only ordered the division of the property in Tel Aviv and its money among the heirs in equal parts, without any provision that could affect the property in Nes Ziona in any way.
- The claim of a future transaction in inheritance in contravention of the Section 8(a) The Inheritance Law constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front and is even incorrect on its merits.
Accordingly, the defendant petitioned to reject the objection to the prior will and to issue an order for its execution; to order the amendment/cancellation of the provisions in dispute in the later will so that it would be determined that it relates only to the property in Tel Aviv and does not relate to and does not include the property in Nes Ziona.
- The applicants for probate of the will claim that:
- The early will is in fact an invalid agreement regarding the future inheritance of the house in the Ziona property that was made during the deceased's lifetime, and therefore it is essentially null and void by virtue of Section 8(a) to the Inheritance Law and also because the deceased cancelled the early will in the late will because of the defendant's disgraceful behavior towards him.
- There was no mistake in the late will and it should not be interfered with.
Therefore, the plaintiffs petitioned to cancel the early will in essence and to issue the order of probate of the late will so that all of the deceased's property would be divided among the heirs in equal parts; alternatively, to give preference to the later will in accordance with section 36 of the Inheritance Law.