Interpretation of a will according to Israeli law
The source of rules of interpretation Will This is Section 54 (a) of the Inheritance Law, according to which “a will is interpreted according to the testator’s intention as implied from the will, and to the extent that it is not implied from it – as implied from the circumstances.” The term “testator’s intention” means to determine the true intentions and goals of the testator.
Hence, it can be concluded from this section of the law that in interpreting the will, every effort must be made to respect the testator’s wishes and fulfill his true intention.
The need for court intervention in the interpretation of the will arises only in exceptional cases where the testator’s intention cannot be understood from the language of the will alone.
In these situations, the court will act in accordance with the following rules and criteria:
- In cases where it becomes necessary to deviate from the narrow interpretation of the will, the court will choose a broad interpretation and the language of the will will be amended subject to the intention of the deceased. The subjective intention of the writer of the will must be ascertained and adhered to, even if this involves changing the provisions of the will.
- In cases where the language of the will is ambiguous, the will must be interpreted according to the testator’s wishes as implied by the circumstances, and only when the testator’s intention is not clear from the will itself do we turn to external circumstances that may assist in the interpretation.
What are external circumstances?
When the testator’s intention cannot be realized by interpreting the will alone, judges need evidence external to the will that serves as evidence of the original intention. In any case, preference is given to the testator’s assessment of the testator’s intent, and if the assessment of his intent does not emerge from the will, external circumstances are used.
The term external circumstances includes, according to Retired Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, data regarding what occurred up until the will was written, during its writing, and during the events that occurred after its writing, from which we can learn about the will writer’s mindset.
- The court always prefers to interpret the will as enforceable rather than to interpret it in a way that will lead to its annulment, in accordance with the words of the testator.
- If it cannot be clearly determined what the testator would have instructed in his will without the mistake – the will’s instruction is void (Section 30 of the Inheritance Law). An example of the application of the rule follows.
Examples from Family Court rulings
The verdict rendered in the proceedings Building code 6013/00 by Judge Safed, is a case in which the court deviated from the provisions of the will in order to fulfill the testator’s wishes. In the will, the deceased wrote that all of his property would pass to his nephews after his death and that the widow would receive $2,500 each month to be used to pay for nursing care if she needed it.
In addition, the widow was awarded a car and movable property under the will. The widow filed a lawsuit claiming joint ownership of the property with the deceased.
The heirs of the deceased submitted through lawyer A counterclaim, in which they demanded that the widow’s ownership of half of the assets be conditioned on the cancellation of the monthly payment due to her according to the will.
The judges were impressed that the couple had led a normal married life for many years and that the joint effort component had also been met. In light of this, it was determined that the presumption of partnership should be realized and hence that the widow is entitled to half of the property.
However, they ruled that, given the fact that the widow would receive half of the property, the assumption that she should be bequeath a monthly pension of $2,500 was incorrect. The explanation was that if the deceased had known that half of the property would go to his wife, he would have acted differently.
In this explanation, the judges based their decision on Section 30 of the Inheritance Law, which states that if it is impossible to clearly determine what the testator would have instructed in his will without error, the will is void. In this case, the testator made an error in his assessment, since if he had known that the widow was entitled to half of the property, he would not have instructed to pay her the monthly amount.
Therefore, the payment that the heirs must make to the widow was reduced to $1,250 per month and the will was amended accordingly. This ruling demonstrates how the Home Family Law in the wording of the will and adapted it to the new circumstances, taking into account the testator’s opinion, to the extent that it was possible to assess it.
In another case brought before the Haifa Magistrate’s Court (000011/01 E.Z. in Sha’a 4480/00) On August 1, 2001, a hearing was held regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the will of the late Aryeh Weissman.
“In section 6, the deceased divides his property between the parties who are beneficiaries of the will – the petitioner Avishai Katz and the respondent Levin Ruth. Half of the apartment belonging to the deceased, including the contents and items, will be transferred, according to the testator’s instructions, to Levin Ruth, and to Katz Avishai all the funds in the International Bank at the branch specified in the will will be transferred, and the funds from the provident fund – an impact fund located at another branch.
The sentence that sparked controversy within that section is “I also order Mrs. Levin Ruth to pay a sum of 50,000 NIS – in order to buy back half of the apartment that passed to the heirs.”
The applicant claimed in his lawsuit that the deceased intended the amount to accumulate in the period of time between the writing of the will and the day of his death.
In the opinion of the judges, the meaning of the sentence is clear in light of other sections in the will that indicate the testator’s intention. The intention is that the respondent is entitled to exactly fifty thousand shekels from the estate.
The applicant’s argument is illogical because if the deceased had indeed intended for the amount to be added during that time gap, he would not have specified an exact amount but would have opened another account or separated the funds that had accumulated up until the will was drawn up from the funds that had been added since its writing.
The judges argued that the will’s instruction regarding the bequest of 50,000 shekels from the estate is clear and even emphatic. In addition to his desire that the respondent receive the stated amount, he adds that the amount will be used by her to buy the remaining portion.
The conclusion is therefore that the testator’s intention was to bequeath the amount from funds accumulated in his accounts, and therefore, the judges ruled, the applicant must transfer to the respondent an amount of NIS 50,000 plus interest and linkage differentials as of June 24, 2000 (the day of the deceased’s death).
In conclusion, it can be concluded in light of the above that although it is appropriate for the court to minimize its intervention in the drafting of the will, sometimes there is no escape from this and an interpretation must be determined in a legal hearing. This is especially true when the reality after the testator’s death requires it, as can be seen in the above-mentioned rulings.
Questions about will interpretation? Want to get a professional opinion?
Click here to receive legal advice from a lawyer specializing in wills!
