A prominent Israeli businessman worth hundreds of millions of shekels sought to prevent legal battles over his estate by including a clause in his will stipulating that any heir who challenged its terms would receive just one shekel.
Despite that provision, members of his family pursued court proceedings that concluded this week with a ruling by the Tel Aviv District Court. In a majority decision, the court sided with the businessman’s children from a previous marriage, determining that his widow forfeited the substantial assets bequeathed to her under the will — though she will still receive about 5.9 million shekels (roughly $1.6 million). The judgment was cleared for publication without naming the parties.
The businessman, who owned extensive assets, left a detailed will dividing his estate between his children from a prior marriage — including shares in a company controlling one of Israel’s well-known properties — and his wife. The will included a “no-contest clause” stating that any heir who objected to the will or any of its provisions “will receive nothing from my estate and may, upon request, receive only the sum of one shekel.”
According to the ruling, the widow and the children had signed a written undertaking during the businessman’s lifetime pledging to respect his wishes.
After his death, the widow submitted the will for probate, and the children did not oppose it. The will was upheld. However, the widow later filed a separate property claim against the children, seeking half of the assets accumulated during the period when she and the businessman were common-law partners, prior to their marriage, as well as half of the increase in value of those assets during that time.
She argued that she had been actively involved in managing the businesses and contributed to their growth.
The children asked the court to dismiss the claim, citing the written undertaking in which the widow agreed to honor the will and be satisfied with the shares granted to her. They also filed a counterclaim seeking to enforce the no-contest clause. The widow contended that she had not challenged the will itself and therefore the clause should not apply, arguing that she was entitled under Israeli law to claim her property rights based on the presumption of joint ownership.
In April 2025, a family court ruled in favor of the children on the no-contest clause, determining that the widow would inherit nothing under the will. At the same time, the court upheld her separate property claim, awarding her roughly one-third of the shares in one of the businessman’s central companies. Both sides appealed.
Judge Naftali Shilo of the Tel Aviv District Court rejected the widow’s appeal this week, ruling that filing the property claim triggered the no-contest clause.
“It is clear that the wife’s claim to obtain her alleged rights caused certain property that the deceased bequeathed solely to his children to be transferred to her, thereby frustrating his clear and unequivocal intent,” Shilo wrote. “The deceased sought through this clause to prevent precisely what ultimately occurred.”
However, the judge also ruled that the widow’s breach of her undertaking did not nullify her right to claim property rights arising from the increase in value of the assets under the legal presumption of joint ownership. The court determined she is entitled to half of the active appreciation of certain assets, amounting to about 5.9 million shekels, partially accepting the children’s appeal.
Judge Yehezkel Eliyahu concurred with Shilo’s opinion. Judge Amir Weitzenblit dissented, writing that the widow’s appeal should have been accepted and the no-contest clause not enforced, which would have entitled her to her share under the will.
Attorney Boaz Kraus Photo: Moshe Tessler
The children were represented by attorneys Boaz Kraus, Hamutal Tsari-Semina and Yossi Ashkenazi. The widow was represented by attorney Avner Zinger.
Kraus and Tsari-Semina said the ruling “sends a sharp and clear message — a person’s will is not a recommendation but an instruction that must be respected.”
Zinger said the minority opinion was “well reasoned” and reflected the deceased’s intent, describing the couple’s relationship as loving and close. He said they are considering seeking leave to appeal to Israel’s Supreme Court.