The defendant did not act even after his mother's death: "Q: By virtue of being the custodian of your father's property and the account was in the name of both father and mother, did you not imitate what happened with the account before your mother's death? A: I only saw that my mother managed a stock portfolio there, I did not get into the thick of it. Q: I did not see if there were any entries into the account? A: No, I did not go into it" (p. 173, paras. 7-9). The defendant's conduct is puzzling, especially when the account ostensibly requires management, while the claim that no action should have been taken in the account was made in vain and illogical in view of its composition: "Until the moment of the dispute. . At the beginning of 2020, I didn't touch anything that improved the balance of the account. The only thing I would normally do is watch, definitely watch the account, make sure my dad's income comes in, I didn't touch and I also wrote that I didn't want to touch the account as long as my dad was alive. That was my stated intention. Q: Securities are a dynamic thing, Forex is a dynamic thing. A: Nothing. Q: Nothing from 2015 to 2020? A: Don't catch me for it, I say, the securities brought in a return, I followed them but there was no need to use it. My mother made a very good investment and to this day, by the way, nothing has changed to this day" (Defendant - p. 206, s. 21-26, p. 207, s. 1-16).
As stated, the only action that the defendant performed in the account was related to the return of funds in the sum of ILS 30,000 to which the deceased was "owed": "And it belongs to me because I, this store, after the tenant left, he looted there, ... and I paid out of my money, for which I obviously deserve a refund. This refund is not my parents' refund. ... This is money that I owned and I decided at that moment to use it" (Defendant - p. 114, paras. 6-10; Plaintiff - p. 11, paras. 16-17; Prov. March 22,2020, p. 6, paras. 11-19). However, a person does not repay himself from his own money. Moreover, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant: "It is recommended in joint accounts to inform in advance of an expense that goes to one of us, " without the defendant hastening to point out to him that the funds in the account are not shared (p. 129, para. 22, p. 130, paras. 3,7; notice dated December 29,2018 N/5 of defendant 2's affidavit).