Inheritance

A: Yes, she may. The court will examine whether your (former) sister-in-law, the objector, can be considered an “interested party” under the 1965 Inheritance Law and the case law. That is, whether she currently has an objective financial interest, in the estate of your deceased father, as opposed to a future interest. If the answer is yes, she can file an objection. The court generally tends not to strike out proceedings, and to allow those interested, access to the courts. This was ruled on 28.11.24 by the Family Court in Kiryat Gat (Inheritance file 20705-03-24). There, the addition of a son-in-law, as one of the objectors to the will of the deceased mother (his mother-in-law) was accepted.

A: Yes! If you prove that there was indeed a legal proceeding between the neighbor and your father, and that your father sued the neighbor and testified against her, in a way that refutes the provisions of the will, there is a good chance that the court will not take into account the provisions of the will, which preceded the legal proceeding that took place between them. In its decision, the court will consider additional circumstances, such as your father’s age, his health condition, etc. For example, the Family Court in Be’er Sheva on 1.7.24 gave a judgement in which he rejected a claim to probate a will in similar circumstances. It dealt with a 94-year-old deceased man who had made a will in which he disowned his children and bequeathed his apartment to his housekeeper. However, several years later, he took legal action against her (his housekeeper) to cancel a gift transaction regarding his apartment. As part of the proceedings at that time in court, the deceased testified that the housekeeper had taken advantage of him and exploited him and that he had not had any marital relationship with her. After his death, she sought to probate the deceased’s will, which was not revoked by him. The court rejected her claim. (Inheritance file 12529-04-21).

A: Yes! If the mutual will specified the option for the surviving spouse to make a new will, your mother could make a new will, which would cancel the provisions of the mutual will, with respect to you. Alternatively, your mother could waive your father’s estate, in such a way that your father’s estate would be divided between you, his children. You can relinquish your inheritance in favor of your mother, and then she can make a new will and direct the estate as she wishes, or (if you do not sign a disclaimer of inheritance in her favor) make a new will that will only refer to her estate.

A: Not necessarily. The Ashdod Family Court ruled on 9.12.24, (Inheritance File 61436-07-20), that the fact that one of the children, the beneficiary of the will, drove the deceased mother to the notary’s office for the purpose of signing her will does not constitute “involvement” in drawing up the will/ Since the notary testified that in all his conversations and meetings with the deceased, the deceased was alone It appears doubtful that the plaintiff (the child) knew at all about the purpose of the deceased’s meeting with the notary. But even if he did, the Court found that he was not present at the meeting itself, and the deceased’s transportation to the meeting was alongside additional arrangements and was not made as a specific trip dedicated solely to the meeting with the notary.

A: In most cases, the Family Court will give great weight to the testimony of the notary, the will’s executor. In a Judgement dated 9.12.24, (Inheritance File 61436-07-20) the Ashdod Family Court, rejected two brothers’ objection to the execution of their mother’s will. The two brothers were disinherited from their mother’s estate, in favor of two other brothers. The court considered the testimony of the notary, who knew the deceased and her children, and even represented some of them in the past, and accepted his testimony, that this was the deceased mother’s wish. The Court stated that the notary also stated in his testimony the reason why the deceased chose to disinherit the brothers and bequeath her entire estate to the plaintiffs, in that the deceased believed that the plaintiffs’ situation justified financial assistance while the other two brothers were financially “settled.”

A: Not necessarily. On 31.12.24, the Nof HaGalil-Nazareth Family Court, (Case No. 64800-10-20, 64801-10-20), gave a judgement which addressed this issue. The Family court ruled that the testator’s will is of paramount importance, and that although the deceased’s level of Hebrew was not high, it was sufficient for her to detail and express her wishes to the lawyer and to draw up a short will. Therefore, the court ruled that the will is valid, as it is.

A: Yes. In a ruling (Estate file No. 2110/01), the Family Court was presented with two conflicting medical opinions regarding the deceased’s capacity to understand that she was making a will. The Court ruled that it was satisfied that, despite the deceased’s medical and depressive condition, she did not have such a cognitive decline as to negate free will. The Court noted that both experts expressly agreed that the issue of taking medication and painkillers does not negate free will. Considering this, the Court rejected the argument regarding the deceased’s lack of mental capacity due to her medical condition, and ultimately ruled that the deceased’s will, an oral will, was valid.

A: Yes, possibly. In a ruling (Inheritance File # 4410/99) it was determined that even when the testator is mentally ill, this does not invalidate the will. The legal requirement is to prove that the mental illness impaired the deceased’s ability to form free will and understand the nature of the will as of the date it was drawn up.

A: Yes, they can. The mere appointment of a guardian for a person is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that a will made by him/her after the guardian appointment is invalid due to lack of competence to make it.

No! your mother had the right to sign a new will because their joint/mutual will was signed before the amendment to the Israeli Law of Inheritance. In a similar case which was brought before the Family Court in Jerusalem (Case # 38653-08-20) it was ruled that since the amendment to the law entered into force after the signing of the mutual/joint will then the surviving mother was allowed to draft a new and different will. The Court also found that the surviving mother did not act in bad faith.