The Family Court in Nof Hagalil–Nazareth rejected a request to cancel a succession order (which was also memorialized on video) filed by two sons of a deceased man, ruling that his property will remain with his nephew, just as the deceased commanded. The inheritance includes an apartment and funds in the accounts of the deceased.
The judgment, rendered by Judge Itay Karmi, deals with a case where the deceased left all his property to his nephew who cared for him for many long years, while a prolonged estrangement prevailed between the deceased and his sons, some of whom lived abroad. The succession order was granted in 2024, and only a year and three months later did the sons file the request to cancel it.
The sons claimed that their father lacked legal capacity at the time of its drafting, was legally incompetent, suffered from a mental crisis, and was subjected to unfair influence by the nephew who exploited his dependence on him. The sons further claimed improper involvement of the nephew in the drafting of the will, forgery of the signature of the deceased, and that the video recording of the drafting of the will was partial and edited. The sons explained the significant delay in filing their request by language difficulties, geographical distance, financial difficulties, and the existence of contacts and certain dialogue between the parties.
On the other hand, the nephew claimed that the deceased was completely lucid and legally competent at the time of signing, as evidenced by a medical certificate provided in real time by a treating psychiatrist and psychogeriatrician. The nephew emphasized that the clear desire of the deceased was to bequeath the property to him in appreciation for accompanying and supporting him devotedly for 23 years, compared to his children who alienated him.
In his judgment, Judge Karmi rejected the request of the sons and ruled, among other things, that all explanations of the sons for the delay and the claim of financial difficulties were not supported by evidence, and that the language difficulties and distance were resolved in real time through an attorney acting on their behalf.
The court defined the claim of the sons as a groping based on hope rather than solid facts. Regarding medical capacity, it was ruled that against the general claims of the sons, who were not in contact with their father, stands a detailed medical certificate from real time confirming his lucidity.
The judge noted that he watched the video several times and was impressed that the deceased was in full attention, understood the words of the attorney, and maintained eye contact while explaining in his own voice and in a steadfast manner that he prefers to bequeath his property to the nephew and not to his children who severed ties with him.
In conclusion, the judge relied on judgments of the Supreme Court according to which technical assistance, summoning an attorney, or paying a fee as a representative of the deceased do not constitute improper involvement in the drafting of the will. Only exceptional influence, such that directs the will of the testator in his stead, will be considered improper.
The court obligated the sons to pay the nephew court costs in the amount of NIS 10 thousand.
Attorney On Tzook, who serves as an estate administrator and whose office deals with family and inheritance law, explains that "The law allocates only 14 days to file an opposition to a succession or probate order. A delay beyond this date will require an extension request accompanied by proven and satisfactory explanations, whereas after the order has already been granted, as in this case, the process is significantly more complex and requires proving objective reasons and real difficulties for the delay."
According to him, "A claim of legal incompetence requires backing with medical documents, where sometimes a psychogeriatric certificate is insufficient and a psychiatrist's opinion should be preferred, as many elderly individuals undergo an initial examination but struggle with making complex decisions. In addition, he emphasizes that "Not every technical assistance of an heir to a testator, such as locating an attorney or accompanying him to one, will be considered as unfair influence leading to the disqualification of the will, but only direct intervention in its phrasing or harming the free will of the testator."
In conclusion, Attorney Tzook recommends drafting a detailed and reasoned will, appointing an estate administrator to prevent conflicts, and verifying the document through two witnesses. Furthermore, he suggests video-recording the testator expressing his will, especially if biological heirs have been disinherited, as in this case, the children of the testator.
