In light of the above, why did the parents who never ensured that there would be an equal division (the defendant - p. 177, paras. 24-26, p. 178, paras. 1-19), and did not think that they had deprived any of the children (the plaintiff - p. 44, paras. 8-11; p. 6 n/1) see fit to give the defendant millions of shekels as a gift at the relevant time when there is no discrimination?
- On the evidentiary level, too, there is a significant weakness in the deprivation version. The defendant confirmed that he sent his parents a "formal" letter (p. 151, s. 2), testifying that his mother's letter was: ".. and she expressed her feeling here, she also expressed her opinions and expressed regrets about all kinds of things they did... and she writes that in retrospect she should have done other things and that she too would compensate us in the future" (p. 152, paras. 15-18). It was expected that the defendant would submit as evidence the letter he sent to his parents in order to lay out a full evidentiary picture that could, prima facie, corroborate the version of the transfer of funds to correct an "injustice".
The defendant refrained from bringing the aforementioned evidence, without a satisfactory explanation for his refusal to do so: "Q: Should it have been disclosed? A: I think you are wrong. I think that the letter speaks for itself, no matter what I have written" (p. 152, paras. 11-12). Therefore, his refusal acts in accordance with his obligation.
- Moreover, in our case, the defendant's conduct is inconsistent with his joy at the correction of an "injustice" that was allegedly done to him. For example, the defendant testified that the occasion was moving (p. 105, paras. 20-25), did not tell his friends (p. 193, s. 7), did not celebrate the correction of the injustice (p. 193, s. 9), did not write a letter of appreciation to his parents (p. 179, s. 24).
- In this case, the evidence of the defendant's attachment (the bank documents) proves the combination does not prove its purpose, without additional evidence being brought that indicates the intention of the jealousy. In light of all of the above, in the absence of sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence linking those circumstances to the defendant's addition to the account in 2015, and taking into account his behavior in real time, the deprivation version does not succeed in overcoming the evidentiary picture that arises from the actual conduct. From this it is necessary to conclude that the act of joining the account should not be attributed to a far-reaching proprietary significance that is not required by its circumstances.
- Interim Summary: From all of the above, it follows that the parents had no intention or discretion to give the defendant the funds in the account as a gift when he was added as a partner in the joint account, while the parents were still alive.
Second condition: The timing of the giving of the gift before death has not been proven.
- In our case, after examining the evidence placed before me, I determine that no intention to grant a gift immediately was proven. The account is "jointly and severally", without limiting the defendant (pp. 15-161 N/2). However, the bank's documents regulate the relationship between the partners and the bank, and they do not indicate any proprietary partnership. As stated in Prof. Ravilo's article, Gift and Joint Bank Account, Mishpatim 23 (1994) 239, at p. 256: "Opening a joint bank account and filling out an instruction form is not in itself a gift... In certain cases, it is necessary to determine that it is possible to "confer rights" on the balance of a joint account, but for this purpose it is crucial to the fact that the giver's will was expressed in the clearest possible manner, so that we can determine that he wished to give a gift immediately.
- In this case, the defendant testified that the deceased never said the words "together and separately": "Q: Do you remember your mother using the words "together and separately"? A: No, my mother told me she was giving me a gift. ... Q: My mother used the words "together and separately" A: Not that I remember. ... Q: So why did you write that she said "together and separately"? A: The whole purpose was to give me a gift, so she invited me. .. Q: How did you allow section 3 to be written as it is when you put the words "together and separately" in the mouth of your late mother when it is something that did not happen was not created? A: I accept your comment, I still come and tell you that the bottom line was - we want to give you a gift" (p. 103, s. 1 - p. 104, s. 16).
- Moreover, the defendant's conduct clearly shows that he did not receive the money in the account as a gift from his parents. I will illustrate.
- The defendant first testified that his parents asked to give him the full money in the account as a gift, immediately: "as owners with them together and severally, i.e., 100% owners" (paragraph 3 of the affidavit; p. 91, s. 18, p. 145, s. 5). However, later in his testimony, he claimed that his parents gave only half of the money in the account: "There is a joint account between my father and me. As long as my father lives, this is the case. The day after my father, 50% belongs to me and the rest belongs to the three of us. Your claim that my mother did not include me in the account is baseless" (Notice of December 19,2018, P/18).
These are contradictory versions, to which the defendant did not provide a logical or satisfactory explanation. It is precise that if his proposal to divide the funds was intended to prevent a dispute, why is his initial announcement belligerent (notice dated November 28,2019, P/19; p. 145, paras. 10-26, p. 146, paras. 1-5, p. 146, paras. 20-26, p. 6, paras. 1-6). In the absence of clear and reliable evidence showing that the parents intended to provide the defendant with the full funds immediately, it appears that the defendant tried to receive at least 50% of the account.
- A person who believes that account money was given to him as a gift, and certainly a person who wishes to realize that "gift", even at a later stage (p. 206, paras. 2,17,23-26, p. 207, s. 1), does not conduct himself in the manner in which the defendant actually conducted. I will illustrate.
For example, the defendant did not take any action in the account after it was joined: he did not deposit any funds in the account, even once: "not a single penny... not a promil" (the defendant - p. 177, paras. 1-9), did not withdraw funds from the account for his own needs and did not perform any actions attesting to personal use of the funds, except for a single action (see below). If the mother had indeed asked to give the defendant the money in the account as a gift, it would have been expected that after it was joined, the defendant would take an active part in the management of the account and act as the owner of it, certainly when the defendant was told that the account was intended to balance him with his brothers: "She told me explicitly, this is a kind of balance over all the years in which I supposedly claimed that I had been deprived" (the defendant - p. 100, paras. 4-5), and certainly certainly when it comes to "a lot of money... In such and such an amount" (the defendant - p. 101, s. 17, p. 102, s. 4), "and moreover, there were also shares, interest, etc., etc., etc." (p. 173, s. 1) that could be lost: "Q: She can also make bad investments and then you will have nothing left? A: And lose the money, unequivocally" (the defendant - p. 204, paras. 10-12). In practice, however, the mother continued to manage the account exclusively until her death, without any intervention or involvement on the part of the defendant: "Until my mother passed away, I did not know what was going on in the account. My mother managed the account... until she died" (p. 172, paras. 21-23), "until my mother died, ... I think that maybe once I looked at the account, I'm not sure" (p. 205, paras. 1-2; see also defendant 2, p. 62, paras. 5-6).