The Tel Aviv District Court accepted the appeal of seven brothers from a southern settlement, and ordered the invalidation of a will that bequeathed all of the family's property to one son.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The appeal was accepted after the brothers' attorney, Attorney Avi Geffen, presented documents that the heir submitted to the National Insurance Institute, according to which his father is completely demented and does not recognize his surroundings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before the Family Court, that son argued vehemently that the will that his father signed, at that very time, and which transferred all of the family's property to him, was made when the father was completely lucid and responsible for his actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The District Court, consisting of three judges, accepted the brothers' appeal, by majority opinion, and ruled: "The court is not a program as you requested," and it is not possible to present two contradictory representations to two different state authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the center of the passionate conflict was a moshavnik, who for decades headed a family farm in a moshav in the south of the country, and after his death, his property became the focus of a bitter conflict between his children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the heart of the dispute was a will signed at the end of 2014, in which the father bequeathed all of his property - including the farm in the moshav - to only one son, while completely dispossessing his other children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question before the Family Court was simple but loaded: At the time the will was signed, was the father capable of understanding the significance of his actions or was he already in the throes of Alzheimer's disease, which he was diagnosed with several months later?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first signs of deterioration in the resident's condition appeared as early as 2013. His family members described instances of confusion and loss of direction, even in areas he knew well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
During 2014, the episodes of forgetfulness and disorientation continued - but despite this, in December of that year, the deceased father arrived at the office of a lawyer and notary and signed a will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The notary read the will to the father and was impressed that he understood its contents. No medical opinion was attached to the will, and the signature was based solely on the notary's personal impression. In retrospect, the brothers claimed that the father was, in addition to all his troubles, also hard of hearing, and that at the time of signing he did not wear a hearing aid - a fact that they claimed effectively rendered him completely deaf at the time of signing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The picture changed completely a few months later. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In early 2015, the late father was examined by a geriatrician, who determined that he was suffering from advanced Alzheimer's disease. He was later assessed for dependency by the National Insurance Institute, which described him as someone who has difficulty finding his way around even in his own home, does not recognize those around him, and requires almost complete supervision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In one of the cases documented in the report, the social worker sent to check on the father says that he did not recognize his son who entered the room - the same son who ultimately inherited all of his property - and thought that it was actually the chairman of the moshav committee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following her findings, the social worker recommended not leaving the father alone for fear of his safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After the father's death in 2019, at the age of 86, the heir son filed a petition to have the will executed. The brothers, who discovered in the will that they were completely disinherited, initiated legal proceedings in the Family Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court appointed an expert psychiatrist on its behalf, who determined that in light of the father's serious condition in 2015, it was very likely that he was already suffering from Alzheimer's at the time the will was signed. The expert estimated that the father was not competent to sign the will with a probability of 55%\u201365%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite the expert opinion on his behalf, the Family Court preferred the testimony of the neighbors and members of the moshav, who claimed that the father was opinionated, sharp and clear-headed, and that he wanted to bequeath his property to his son, who was the only one of the brothers who kept Shabbat like his father, and even cared for him with devotion in his later years. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In light of this, the court confirmed the validity of the will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The brothers did not give up and turned to attorney Avi Geffen, who filed an appeal on their behalf to the Tel Aviv District Court. One of the decisive cards that tipped the scales was a document revealed by attorney Geffen, which the son himself submitted to the National Insurance Institute, near the time the will was signed, in which he described his father as a person who does not recognize people, gets lost and needs almost full assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Attorney Gefen, it is impossible for a person to argue before a single authority that his father lacks judgment and is not responsible for his actions - and before the court to argue exactly the opposite, especially when it comes to a will that benefits only him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was also alleged that the son even admitted that he exaggerated the description of the father's condition in order to receive a nursing care benefit, in other words, he admitted to defrauding the National Insurance authorities. It was also alleged that the father was unable to get to the notary himself, and that the heir son apparently drove him to the signing ceremony, a fact that raises concerns about unfair influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ruling was given by a panel of judges Gershon Gontovnik, Einat Ravid, and Naftali Shilo. While the head of the panel, Judge Gontovnik, believed that there was no reason to interfere with the Family Court ruling, Judges Ravid and Shilo accepted the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The majority of judges ruled that documents prepared in real time by professional parties - doctors and National Insurance employees - should be preferred over later testimonies from family members and neighbors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judges were impressed that these documents presented a consistent picture of severe cognitive decline very close to the date of signing the will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judges also accepted the opinion of the expert appointed by the Family Court, who determined that Alzheimer's disease does not appear all at once. According to him, it is a disease characterized by prolonged deterioration, and therefore the heir's version, according to which his father only contracted the disease after the will was signed - a few months before he was diagnosed with advanced Alzheimer's - is not plausible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thus, the District Court ruled, by majority opinion, that at the time the will was drawn up, the deceased was not sufficiently capable of understanding the significance of his actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court ordered the cancellation of the will, and the return of the distribution of the estate to the path of legal inheritance, according to which the property must be divided among the heirs according to the order of inheritance established by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Attorney Avi Gefen, who represented the appellants, the court's ruling on this issue is precedent-setting. In effect, the court reinforced the principle of silence, not only before the court, but also before other state authorities, and determined that it is impossible for an heir to present to one authority a picture according to which his father is demented and does not recognize his surroundings and is therefore entitled to a benefit, while before another authority he will present a completely opposite picture, according to which his father is mentally competent to sign a complex will.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d4\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05d6\u05d9 \u05d1\u05ea\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e2\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d1\u05e2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05de\u05d5\u05e9\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd, \u05d5\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc \u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05db\u05dc \u05e8\u05db\u05d5\u05e9 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d1\u05df \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3. \u05d4\u05e2\u05e8\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05ea\u05e7\u05d1\u05dc \u05dc\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05db\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd, \u05e2\u05d5\"\u05d3 \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d2\u05e4\u05df, \u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05d2 \u05de\u05e1\u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05ea\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05e9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05df \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9 \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05e1\u05d3 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d9, \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d3\u05de\u05e0\u05d8\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05d8\u05d9\u05df, \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05d6\u05d4\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea \u05e1\u05d1\u05d9\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5. \u05de\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4 […]","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":614326,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[1160,360,2396,2413],"class_list":["post-1040271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-24","tag-1160","tag-360","tag-2396","tag-2413"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n