Grandmother's Will Change Upheld by Court, Grandson Receives Minimal Inheritance

A Haifa court has ruled that a grandmother's revised will, drastically reducing her grandson's inheritance to 10,000 shekels, is legally valid. The grandmother and her husband had initially signed identical mutual wills in 2013, dividing their assets among their five children. However, ten years later, after one son passed away and his son (the grandson) inherited from him, the grandmother drafted a new will in June 2023. This new will left her remaining assets to her four surviving children, with the grandson receiving only a symbolic sum.

The grandson contested the new will, arguing it was invalid because the original wills were mutual and the grandmother lacked the capacity to change them after her husband's death without forfeiting her inheritance from him. He also claimed she was unduly influenced by her children and lacked testamentary capacity. The court, presided over by Judge Hila Gurevich Ovadiya, dismissed all of the grandson's claims.

The judge found that while the identical nature of the 2013 wills created a presumption of mutuality, a specific clause within those wills allowed the grandmother to revoke or alter her will at any time before her death. This clause, the court determined, superseded the standard legal limitations on changing mutual wills after a spouse's passing. The court also rejected claims of undue influence and lack of capacity, citing evidence including a video recording of the grandmother at the notary's office where she clearly explained her intentions and reasons for the reduced inheritance, stating the grandson had not been in contact with her or her late husband.

Further evidence of the grandmother's mental state included a handwritten note and a doctor's assessment two days prior to signing the will, which found her to be of sound mind and capable of making decisions, despite some short-term memory issues. The court also dismissed the argument that the case should be handled by a rabbinical court, stating that civil courts have jurisdiction. Despite the four children winning the case, the judge denied them legal expenses, citing their unreliable testimony and failure to present crucial evidence, such as the notary's video, earlier in the proceedings.