Court Rules Millions in Bank Account Belong to Deceased Father, Not Son
Translated & summarized from Ynet by baba
A Tel Aviv family court ruled that millions of shekels in a bank account belong to a deceased father, not his son who was added as a partner. The court found the addition was for convenience due to the father's Alzheimer's, not a gift. The son's claims of a gift and prior deprivation were rejected due to lack of evidence and contradictory testimony. The son must report on account activity and return improperly withdrawn funds, and pay 50,000 shekels in costs.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- A Tel Aviv court ruled millions in a bank account belong to a deceased father, not his son.
- The son was added to the account for convenience, not as a gift, the court determined.
- The father suffered from Alzheimer's, and the mother sought to ensure his affairs were managed.
- The son's claims of a gift and prior deprivation were rejected by the judge.
- The son must report on account transactions and return improperly withdrawn funds.
- The son was ordered to pay 50,000 shekels in legal costs.
A family court in Tel Aviv has ruled that millions of shekels in a bank account belong entirely to a deceased father, rejecting a son's claim that he was gifted the funds. The court found that the son was added to the account as a partner for convenience, not as a beneficiary of a gift.
The wealthy family, involved in tourism and finance, had accumulated significant assets, including properties and bank accounts. In 2012, the parents made a joint will stipulating that their assets would be divided among their three sons after both their deaths. In November 2015, one son was added to a bank account holding millions of shekels.
Following the mother's death in 2015 and the father's death five years later, one of the other sons, who had been his father's guardian, filed a lawsuit. He, along with the third son, argued that the addition of the brother to the account was to facilitate account management if the mother passed away first, given the father's declining cognitive state. They asserted there was no intention to gift the money.
The son added to the account claimed his mother had told him it was an immediate gift to compensate for ongoing perceived deprivation compared to his siblings. He also stated his father understood the implications of signing and that bank documents supported the transfer of rights.
However, Judge Segalit Ofek sided with the two brothers. She emphasized that simply being added to an account does not prove a gift was intended and that clear evidence of the account holders' intent to gift the funds was required. The judge determined the mother's intention was to ensure the father's affairs could be managed, especially as he was dealing with Alzheimer's, not to transfer millions to a son. The court noted the mother had offered the other sons a chance to join the account, which they declined.
The judge also dismissed the son's claim of deprivation, as he had received a shop from his parents and financial assistance for building his home. Furthermore, he failed to call the bank clerk he claimed was present during the alleged gift, or other witnesses supporting his version. Contradictions in his testimony, including initially claiming full ownership and later half ownership, and his prior statements that the funds were part of his father's estate, also weakened his case. The court concluded the son did not prove his parents intended to gift him the money and declared the deceased father the sole owner.
The defendant son was ordered to provide a report on the account's transactions since his mother's death and to return any funds withdrawn for purposes other than his father's benefit. He was also ordered to pay 50,000 shekels in legal costs.
Mentioned
