Background
The applicant was the deceased’s partner from at least 1995 and later his wife. The respondents are his children from a previous marriage. In a 1998 will, the deceased distributed assets among the applicant, the respondents, and his former wife. The will included a no-contest clause providing that a person who opposed the will or any of its provisions “for any reason whatsoever” would receive only one shekel. In 2015, the applicant and respondents also signed a document promising to respect the deceased’s wishes as expressed in his will.
After the deceased died in 2018, the applicant sought recognition of her marital-property rights in the active appreciation of a company whose shares the will assigned to the respondents. The Family Court awarded her property worth approximately NIS 19.876 million but also enforced the no-contest clause, thereby depriving her of her testamentary gifts. The District Court reduced her property award to NIS 5,963,500 and, by majority, upheld enforcement of the clause. The applicant sought leave to appeal only the ruling that disinherited her.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and remanded to the Family Court. It held that an anti-claim no-contest clause—one directed at claims reducing the estate rather than challenges to the will’s validity—must be classified through interpretation of the will and the surrounding evidence. If the testator mistakenly treated property belonging to another person as part of the estate, the statutory law governing mistakes in wills applies. If the evidence shows that the testator knowingly offered a beneficiary a choice between asserting an independent property claim and accepting the testamentary gift, the clause is enforceable without regard to whether the claim was reasonable and brought in good faith.
If the evidence is evenly balanced as to whether the clause embodied such a knowing offer or instead reflected a mistake, the clause is enforceable only subject to a combined good-faith-and-reasonableness test. A beneficiary who brings a reasonable claim in good faith may then retain both any property recovered through the claim and the testamentary gift. The beneficiary bears the burden of proving good faith and reasonableness by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court declined to revisit the lower court’s case-specific findings that the clause was an anti-claim clause and that the applicant’s property action fell within its terms.
On remand, the Family Court must determine whether the will falls into the mistake, knowing-offer, or uncertain-offer category and apply the corresponding rule. The Supreme Court made no costs order.
Key Takeaways
- Anti-claim no-contest clauses are not automatically invalid, but their enforcement depends on what the testator knew and intended when defining the estate and imposing the clause.
- A clearly proven, knowing choice between an independent property claim and a testamentary gift is enforceable even when the property claim is meritorious and brought in good faith.
- When the testator’s awareness and intent remain uncertain, a beneficiary avoids forfeiture only by proving that the claim was objectively reasonable and subjectively brought in good faith.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes a structured framework for Israeli courts confronting no-contest clauses aimed at claims against the composition of an estate. It rejects both categorical invalidity and automatic enforcement, tying the result to careful interpretation of the testator’s knowledge and intent.
The ruling is particularly significant for surviving spouses, whose marital-property interests may not be registered or ascertainable until after death. It also gives will-drafters a strong incentive to state expressly whether a beneficiary must choose between enforcing an independent property right and receiving a testamentary gift.