Israeli Courts Rule on Inheritance Dispute, Class Action Payout, and Payment Deferral

The Family Court in Kiryat Gat has invalidated a later will that favored one daughter over her siblings in an inheritance dispute involving a family farm. The mother, who passed away at 108 and had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and cognitive decline, had initially willed her property to her son B. in 2010. Three years later, when she was 103, she executed a second will, prepared by an attorney, leaving her property solely to daughter A., while granting personal residency rights to sons Y. and B. After the mother's death, all six children initially waived their rights to the first will, and the assets were registered to daughter A. However, son B. contested the later will, alleging his sister A. unduly influenced their mother and that she was unaware of the will's contents. Daughter A. denied involvement and asserted her mother's mental capacity. Judge Diana Passo-Vago ruled that daughter A.'s significant involvement in drafting the will, including providing detailed instructions to the attorney and dictating much of its content, warranted its invalidation. The court also noted that the will was not translated for the mother, who spoke only Tunisian Arabic with limited Hebrew comprehension. The court determined that the siblings' initial waiver of the first will was based on a misrepresentation that the later will was valid. Consequently, the first will favoring son B. remains, and he must now seek its probate. Daughter A. was ordered to pay approximately NIS 60,000 in legal costs to her siblings. Her attorney stated they are considering an appeal due to alleged legal and factual errors.

In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a NIS 120,000 payment imposed on the supermarket chain Freshmarket to a class action lawsuit fund. The original lawsuit claimed Freshmarket violated consumer protection law by failing to display tobacco product prices. The supermarket appealed, arguing the demand was illegal and not in the public interest. The Supreme Court agreed, stating the proceedings yielded no significant benefit to the public and therefore no payment to the fund was justified, even if agreed to as part of a risk management strategy. The court noted that payments to the fund are not charity but compensation for a defendant's misconduct.

Finally, the Supreme Court denied a request to defer a payment of approximately NIS 500,000 owed by a defendant to businessman Amos Luzon for development fees. The defendant, who had appealed a lower court ruling, claimed he was on the verge of financial collapse due to existing loans and would be forced to sell assets if he had to pay immediately. Judge Gila Kenfy-Steinholtz rejected the request, citing established legal precedent that payment deferrals are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The judge found the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence of imminent financial ruin or that repayment would be impossible if he won his appeal. The defendant was ordered to pay NIS 2,000 in costs.