The deceased's conduct after the defendant was added to the account - the defendant's versions regarding the timing of providing the information regarding the balance of the account were inconsistent: before he signed the bank documents - "You were talking about millions, I didn't even know what was going on in the account there. ... Q: You are actually declaring under oath that you have no idea how much money is in the account? A: Unequivocally" (the defendant - p. 99, paras. 20-21, p. 100, paras. 22-24) "She told me later in the conversation... . She gave me an explicit explanation of what it was about, but it was later in the conversation and before the signature" (the defendant - p. 101, paras. 16-19), after he signed the bank documents - "Q: So she told you and before signing did you know what amount it was? A: No, I'm telling you exactly the opposite. She told me, "We want to give you a gift." She didn't tell me how much money there was in the account. After everything was settled and everything was done, she explained to me exactly what was there, and I knew what was there afterwards as well. .. Q: You just said, "Before you signed? A: No... We signed, and after we signed, my mother said to me, you know, it's such and such a sum. ... First of all, she signed me up for the bill... Of course, after that I asked" (the defendant - p. 101, paras. 20-26, p. 102, paras. 4-3,7, 17). The inconsistency in the versions shows that the information given to the defendant about the funds in the account did not stem from his being the owner of the funds or intending to provide him with the funds.
- The mother's conduct as quoted above is consistent with the conclusion that the defendant's addition to the account was done for reasons of convenience.
- Second, the deceased was not competent to understand the nature of a legal act of a gift by adding the defendant as a partner in the account.
- In our case, as early as 2012, the deceased was documented as suffering from Alzheimer's disease (doctor's certificate of Dr. Katzan of Hasharon Hospital, geriatric specialist, dated August 22,2012, P/11, medical certificate of Dr. Yoffe, psychiatrist, dated September 11,2013, P/12).
- In his cross-examination, Dr. Yoffe explained that this is a progressive disease, in which the patient's cognitive state is not characterized by fluctuations of improvement and worsening, but rather by a consistent downward trend: "The basis of the decline is a permanent basis. ... There are no ups. There are downhills. ... There is no benefit" (p. 2, paras. 24-26, p. 3, paras. 1-9).
Indeed, defendant 2 testified about his impression that the father's condition was deteriorating: "He had cognitive decline... for a long time.... The penny dropped when my mother asked to remove the guardian from the body. That is, the token of - it's medical. Q: ... Can you give me a sense of time? 2011,2012,2014? A: ... I don't remember" (p. 94, s. 7-13). The defendant also agreed to this, but tried to claim that the situation was volatile and that the father was fit at the relevant time: "There was a kind of deterioration, a kind of process in which the dementia continued and continued. At a later stage, he was already fully Alzheimer's" (p. 127, paras. 8-10), "I know that my father was ill. The only difference between your version and mine is that I say that my father had better and less good moments" (p. 124, paras. 6-11).
- In our case, the consent to add the defendant to the account does not necessarily indicate that the deceased was competent at the time, and that his consent was given with a clear mind, for the following reasons:
- IV"R. Yoffe wrote in a medical certificate the findings of the examination according to which the father "We are not time-savvy, Without judging reality, without insight into the situation" (document dated September 11,2013, P/12), and in his cross-examination he testified that in his opinion the father was not fit to read or understand a document already in 2013, and certainly not in 2015: "Q: In 2013, was he able to read, understand, and sign a document? A: And I am now basing not on the memory of the examination but on the memory of reading my opinion, ...If they had asked me if he was qualified to sign a document, I would have said no. Q: We may say in 2014, '15 or even '17, in 2017 he signed something and he understood what he signed? A: Probably not... Medical Logic AAnd Mr. No, because as I said, this disease is a deteriorating disease, and if he was incompetent in 2013, in my opinion, then he certainly and certainly in 2015 and 2017 he probably wasn't fit" (p. 5, s. 20 - p. 6, s. 7).
This is compounded by the defendant's confession that he wrote in 2016 that the father was unable to distinguish between people, in reference to his therapist (P/16; the defendant - p. 123, paras. 1-9). I am of the opinion that this testimony of the defendant strengthens the medical findings regarding the father's poor cognitive state and the continuity of the injury over the years. In fact, the defendant's description of the father's condition in 2016 is consistent with the medical findings that preceded it, and strengthens the conclusion that his cognitive state did not allow him to understand the significance of the legal action at the relevant time.