Family Appeal Request 785-03-26 Anonymous vs. Anonymous

Family Appeal Request 785-03-26

Judgment

Judge Yael Willner:

1. Is it according to the rules of inheritance according to the law in the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: The Inheritance Law or The Law), Division of the testator's estate between His brother From both parents and His brother From one parent necessarily egalitarian?

This is the question raised by the application for leave to appeal before us, which revolves around the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court (Vice President T. Bezeq Rappaport, and the judges S. Renner andA.  Sela) of February 16,2026 in Family Appeal 48793-12-25, in which an appeal filed by the Applicant against the judgment of the Jerusalem Family Court was rejected (the Judge Rabbi Lev Ohayon) of 24.11.2025 (amended on 4.12.2025) in the Estate Case 38517-04-24 [Nevo].

2. I will preface by saying that in view of the fundamental question raised by the application in question, we have considered it as if leave to appeal was granted and an appeal was filed pursuant to it, by virtue of our authority under Regulation 149(2)(b) To the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, which was also applied to requests for leave to appeal in family matters, by virtue of Regulation 44 Family Court Regulations (Procedures), 5781-2020. Accordingly, the applicant will be referred to hereinafter The Appellant.

Factual Background

3. The appellant, the respondent and the late R. (hereinafter: The deceased) are brothers. The appellant is the brother of the deceased from his mother (hereinafter: Is itand the respondent is the deceased's brother from his mother and father (hereinafter: The Father).
4. At the end of 2023, the deceased passed away, single and without children, without leaving behind a will. The deceased's parents also passed away, many years before his death.
5. A few months after the deceased's death, the respondent filed an application for an inheritance order in accordance with the law, in which he ultimately requested, that the deceased's estate be divided between him and the appellant, so that the respondent would inherit three-quarters of the estate and the appellant would inherit one-fourth of the estate. The appellant, for his part, filed an objection to the granting of the inheritance order.

The Family Court's Judgment

6. The Family Court accepted the respondent's request for an inheritance order and rejected the appellant's objection. It was held that in accordance with the list of heirs according to the law and the order of priority between them, which are fixed In Sections 10 and12 According to the Inheritance Law, when the deceased died single and without children, his parents had to inherit him.  Subsequently, it was held that from the moment the deceased's parents died before him, the appellant and the respondent came in their shoes, by virtue of the fixed principle of representation In section 14 According to the law, when the testator's heirs die before him, their children come in their shoes.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 19167.       Subsequently, the court was required to address the question of the manner in which the deceased's estate was divided between the appellant - being the "half-brother" of the deceased, and the respondent - being the "full brother" of the deceased.  It was held that a "conceptual division" of the deceased's estate between his parents must first be carried out as follows: The deceased's parents share his estate equally - half for each parent.  Subsequently, since the parents died before the deceased, according to the principle of representation set forth in the law, each parent's children come in the shoes, and the parent's share in the deceased's estate is divided equally between them.  In application to our case, it was held that the respondent takes the father's full share in the deceased's estate, and half of the mother's share in such estate, and the total - three-quarters of the deceased's estate; whereas the appellant takes only half of the mother's share, i.e., a quarter of the deceased's estate.  It should be noted at this point that this course of action of the court was based on the judgment in the Tel Aviv District Court 3861/77 Habasha v. Hakak, IsrSC 5739(2) 115 (1979) (hereinafter: the Habsha).