The Tel Aviv Family Court recently rejected a widow’s challenge to her mother-in-law’s will, in which she claimed she had been disinherited due to improper influence by her sisters-in-law. Judge Lior Beringer dismissed her assertions that she had been the deceased’s beloved daughter-in-law and that the mother lacked capacity when she signed the document.
In January 2009, the mother drafted a will stating that all her property, including a house in central Israel, would be divided among her three daughters, except for 50,000 shekels to be given to another daughter. She left nothing to her son. He died in October 2018, and his mother died a year later. The three daughters, represented by attorney Yaniv Gil, then petitioned the court to validate the will.
Their sister-in-law filed an objection through attorney Aviad Saadi-Sivan, claiming the mother-in-law had not been mentally competent when she signed the will. She argued that the document resulted from undue influence exerted by one of the sisters-in-law, whom she described as the “architect” of the will — “a highly manipulative and cunning woman who works at a law firm, did whatever she wanted with her parents, exploited their distress and dependence on her and ruled over them with a heavy hand.”
She added that her late in-laws loved her deeply, unlike their sons-in-law and daughters, who she said did not treat them respectfully. She further claimed the mother-in-law told her she was so distressed by her daughters that she wanted to end her life, and that she “hated her three sons-in-law with a passion.”
Judge Beringer rejected the claims. As for the allegation of incapacity, he noted that the widow refused to appoint an expert to assess the mother’s condition. He also pointed out that in court, she admitted that in 2011 — two years after the will was drafted — her mother-in-law had been mentally competent.
On the claim of undue influence, the court found that the widow “did not prove any influence by the plaintiffs over the deceased, neither fair nor unfair.” Evidence showed the widow had worked in a hospital and accompanied her mother-in-law during hospitalizations, indicating that the mother was not isolated or subject to improper pressure from an heir.
Regarding the claim that one sister-in-law had been the “architect of the will,” the attorney who drafted the will testified that aside from calling him to say her parents wished to make one, she was not involved in preparing the document.
“I do not believe the objector,” the judge concluded. “I was not impressed by her testimony, and found no evidence whatsoever of undue influence on either of the deceased.” He ordered the will to be executed as written and required the widow to pay her sisters-in-law 80,000 shekels in legal costs.