A cousin who attempted to contest a will despite having no relationship with the deceased lost his claim to an estate valued at roughly 25 million shekels (about $6.6 million).
The case centered on a man who died in his 80s, having lived much of his adult life with his wife, who passed away in 2020. The couple had no children but were financially successful, amassing significant assets, including high-value real estate.
1 View gallery
Illustration
(Photo: Shutterstock)
Following his wife’s death, the man reconnected with a female childhood friend, someone he had grown up with and whose family he had known well.
About nine months after his wife’s death, he drafted a handwritten will leaving his friend everything. He died roughly one month after that. The woman petitioned the court to validate the will, and a genealogist was appointed to identify potential heirs.
The investigation revealed a female cousin, who declined to be involved in the inheritance; her brother, the man’s cousin, on the other hand, objected to the will, alleging that the document was forged and that the deceased had not been mentally competent when signing it.
Represented by attorneys specializing exclusively in inheritance, estates, and wills, the childhood friend argued that she and the deceased had shared a meaningful bond since youth. She said they grew closer after his wife’s death, even living together for a time. She supported him with daily tasks and home care.
The childhood friend said that no one besides her took responsibility for the deceased’s funeral or visited the mourning family. That absence, she argued, reflected her unique role in his life and validated his decision to leave her his estate.
The cousin, she added, had no contact with the deceased and no grounds to challenge the will.
For his part, the cousin claimed that, as the man’s only surviving relative (aside from his sister, who waived her claim), he had a legal right to inherit.
He further claimed that the childhood friend seized control of the deceased’s assets through forgery and impersonation, that she barely knew him, and that she took advantage of his fragile state following his wife’s death.
The judge rejected those claims, ruling that the will was authentic and that the deceased had been of sound mind when he signed it.
She found that the cousin had no personal relationship with the deceased, not even minimal contact. In court, the judge asked the cousin whether he had spoken with the deceased in recent years, whether he had called on holidays or sent greetings. The cousin’s answer was ‘No’.
In her ruling, she wrote that throughout his life, the cousin maintained no relationship at all with the deceased, not even minimal contact. He met him only a few times in childhood or early adulthood, and never again.
She added that they never spoke by phone. Not even during times of national crisis or war in Israel did he reach out. Over the decades, he knew nothing about the man, not that he was married, nor even whether he was alive. ‘Is that what one calls ‘family?’, she asked.
The judge also challenged whether a biological connection outweighed the clear, documented wishes of the deceased, describing the friend as “his sole support” after his wife’s death.
“She evoked childhood memories and helped him through his grief,” the ruling stated. “His will reflects his true intentions and must be respected”, adding that “a close friend is better than a distant cousin”.
The court’s decision did not address a separate legal proceeding concerning the will of the deceased’s late wife, which remains unresolved.
The attorneys representing the childhood friend responded that the court has sent a clear message – an individual’s final wishes are not up for grabs. A will is not an invitation for distant relatives to insert themselves after the fact.
The court unequivocally found that the will was freely written and that the connection between the deceased and the beneficiary was genuine and deep. Justice was served.
An attorney representing the cousin said the ruling was “fundamentally flawed” and confirmed that an appeal and a request to stay the decision have been filed.