The Family Court in Kiryat dismissed a lawsuit filed by a widow and her seven daughters seeking recognition as the “continuing daughters” of a farm in a moshav that belonged to the late father’s parents. Judge Gila Spira-Brenner ruled in a long-running family dispute over who was entitled to the farm designation, including an allegation that a signature had been forged.
The case hinged on a chain of events stretching back decades. In June 1990, the deceased husband was recognized as the “continuing son” on his parents’ farm. But in November 1991, he, his wife and his parents signed a cancellation of that status before the moshav association secretary. The husband died in 2008, after which his parents sought to appoint his brother and the brother’s wife as the new continuing couple.
The grandmother died in 2014 and the grandfather in 2020. That September, the Israel Land Authority approved transferring the farm rights to the brother and his wife. The widow then sued, arguing that her husband’s rights had been taken unlawfully, that the cancellation was forged, and that it was done without his consent and behind the backs of his family. She also claimed the family cut her off because she had not given birth to a son.
The brother said she and her daughters were trying to create “an imaginary reality” that contradicted the documents and facts. The judge accepted the brother’s version, relying in part on testimony from the former moshav secretary that the cancellation had been agreed to. Spira-Brenner wrote that she was not persuaded there had been a “takeover” after the father’s death to deprive the widow of what was hers. She also rejected the forgery claim and said the real reason for the waiver was the family’s wish at the time to build a home on a separate residential plot, which forced them to choose between that option and the farm.
The court said the widow and the deceased husband had apparently presented a false picture to settlement authorities in order to obtain a substantial financial benefit, namely a plot and a house built on it. Because they benefited from that arrangement, the ruling said, they were later barred from denying the cancellation under the doctrine of estoppel. The lawsuit was dismissed, and the widow and daughters were ordered to pay 15,000 shekels in legal costs.
