Siblings’ Challenge Rejected Over Tel Aviv Property Willed to Son Worth Hundreds of Millions of Shekels

The Family Court in Tel Aviv upheld the validity of a 2007 will under which the deceased bequeathed her estate to her son and two grandchildren. The ruling rejected the objection filed by the deceased’s two brothers, who died at the age of 86, and determined that her estate, including many prestigious properties in Tel Aviv worth hundreds of millions of shekels, would pass to her only son and two grandchildren. The deceased was divorced. During her marriage, she received many real estate assets in Tel Aviv from her parents, in partnership with her brother. In the past she made two wills in which she left all her property to her brothers, explicitly stating that her son and husband would inherit nothing, following a family crisis and a rupture that lasted several years. After contact with her son and grandchildren was renewed, she drew up a third will in 2007 in their favor. The son, through attorneys Boaz Kraus and Noa Binder Steinhberg, argued that his mother’s brothers had incited her against her husband and against him. The brothers, in turn, argued that throughout the marriage the couple maintained complete separation of property. The ruling indicates that the deceased’s former husband also came into the marriage from a wealthy, asset-rich family. After the mother’s death, the brothers filed an objection to the will, arguing that the deceased was not cognitively fit when it was prepared. According to them, an guardian had already been appointed for her at that time and she had been under guardianship and suffering from dementia since 2000. The son argued in response that his mother was lucid, and that the appointment was made solely out of the need to manage the property in light of the business dispute with the brothers. The ruling states that there is no dispute that over the years the deceased was not active in managing the family assets and never managed them, and that she had the soul of an artist, loved literature, classical music, poetry, and reading magazines.

Judge Vered Shavit Pinckestein examined the medical records and found that the likelihood that the deceased knew how to understand the nature of the will at the time it was drawn up was greater than the likelihood that she did not. The will drafter testified that he had no doubt about her ability to understand the conversation and the will. The judge further ruled that at the time the will was drawn up, and in the years before and after, there was a close relationship between the deceased and her son and his family, whereas her ties with her brothers gradually weakened. Despite the appointment of a guardian, the judge ruled that, "Both under the law and under case law, there is no obstacle to a ward making a will, even if a guardian has been appointed for her, since this does not impair her capacity to make a will as long as it was made at a point in time when she knew how to understand its nature." In the end she determined that the brothers failed to prove that the deceased was not competent, or that her son had exerted undue influence on her, and therefore rejected their objection. Attorneys Kraus and Binder Steinhberg, who represent the son and grandchildren, said: "The court did justice and determined that the deceased’s last wish should prevail. The ruling makes clear that the appointment of a guardian does not strip a person of their basic rights, and as long as they understand the meaning of their actions, their will must be respected." The brothers responded: "The deceased’s brothers intend to appeal the ruling, which contains material errors, in order to carry out the wishes of their beloved sister."