Family Case (Tel Aviv) 15885-01-20 A.A. v. Y.A. - part 4

The deceased chose a certain legal instrument - whether a smart, dominant and opinionated woman (the plaintiff - p.  7, paras.  16,19; the defendant - p.  119, s.  12; defendant 2 - p.  57, s.  21) - refrained from taking legal or financial actions that could immediately grant the funds to the defendant.  Thus, for example, she refrained from making a bank transfer, as she did in other cases (defendant 2 - p.  96, paras.  4-3,21), and the defendant has no explanation for this (p.  186, s.  16 - p.  187, s.  9).  In addition, even though in the past she had given the plaintiff a (limited) power of attorney in a (Leumi) bank account (document dated July 2,2012 P/3), and was evidently aware of the distinction between granting a power of attorney and adding a person as the owner of the account, she also refrained from granting a power of attorney, because: "She knew that if something happened to her and if she ceased to be fit or went to the twentieth century, the power of attorney would end immediately, it was no longer relevant and she wanted it to be possible to continue to take care of our father" (Plaintiff - p.  14, s.  24-25, p.  16, s.  7-11, p.  36, s.  19-25, p.  38, s.  9-19).  On the other hand, the deceased contacted her other children regarding the possibility of adding them to the account, but her requests were rejected, each for his own reasons (the plaintiff - p.  15, paras.  1,5; defendant 2 - p.  58, paras.  1-2, p.  60, paras.  20, p.  61, paras.  14-15,20,25-26).  In these circumstances, the deceased chose the instrument of adding the defendant to the account, without changing the provision in the will according to which: "The funds in Israel and abroad, deposits, savings plans, cars, stocks, bonds and any other asset will be divided and bequeathed to my children in equal parts" (ibid., section 5.3.6 P/2), even though according to the defendant, the deceased was competent in subsequent years as well (the defendant - p.  117, s.  13, power of attorney dated March 16,2017 N/3).  From this it is necessary to conclude that the addition to the account was done for reasons of convenience;