The Tel Aviv District Court overturned a will that left all of a father’s property to a single son, ruling in favor of the other two brothers. The father, a longtime moshav resident in southern Israel, passed away in 2019. In a will drafted in December 2014, he left his entire estate to one son, disinheriting the others.
The brothers argued that their father was already showing advanced Alzheimer’s symptoms when he signed the will, making him incapable of understanding its significance. Medical records and social worker reports from 2014-2015 supported their claim, describing him as dependent and unable to recognize his surroundings.
At the center of the dispute was a moshav resident from the south who passed away in 2019, after decades of managing a family farm. In a will he drafted in December 2014, the father left all his property to one son, disinheriting his other children. The brothers claimed that at the time of signing, their father was already showing advanced Alzheimer’s symptoms and was effectively incapable of making a will.
According to the brothers, signs of cognitive decline appeared as early as 2013 and worsened throughout 2014. Nevertheless, the father visited a notary’s office and signed the will without a medical opinion. The brothers argued that, in addition to cognitive difficulties, their father had hearing loss and was not wearing a hearing aid at the time, which rendered him unable to understand what was being communicated.
Medical records and social worker testimonies documenting the father’s condition in 2014-2015 supported the brothers’ claims. In one report, a social worker from the National Insurance Institute described how the father did not recognize his only heir and thought he was the chairman of the moshav committee.
Despite an expert opinion commissioned by the family court stating that the father was 55-65% likely to be incompetent to sign a will, the court initially accepted neighbor testimonies in favor of the heir and validated the will.
The brothers choice to appeal the ruling to the district court and the key turning point was a document submitted by the heir himself to the National Insurance Institute shortly after the will was signed, in which he described his father as fully dependent and cognitively impaired. The court applied the principle of estoppel, ruling that the son could not present contradictory versions of facts to different authorities-what he told the National Insurance Institute about his father’s incapacity could not be contradicted in court to validate the will.
The court emphasized that real-time medical records and expert opinions should take precedence over later testimonies from neighbors or family members. It concluded that the father was not competent to understand the will and ordered its annulment. The estate will now be distributed according to inheritance law.
Adv. Avi Gefen, representing the appellants, called the ruling precedent-setting, noting that it reinforces accountability not only in courts but also in interactions with public institutions.