Millionaire demands son divorce wife or lose inheritance
Court backs father’s decision to tie multimillion-shekel estate to son’s marital status.
An Israeli businessman, whose fortune was worth tens of millions of shekels, left behind an extraordinary will in which he bequeathed a substantial portion of his assets to one of his sons only on the condition that he divorce his wife, or, alternatively, if she were to predecease him. The father also stipulated that if three years passed from the date of his death and his son remained married, certain assets would instead be transferred, in specified proportions, to his grandchildren, the children of that son.
The son, faced with this unusual condition for receiving his inheritance, appealed to the Family Court, arguing that the will was illegal and contradicted public policy. However, the Tel Aviv Family Court rejected his claims. Senior Judge Mira Dahan ruled that “in my opinion, the deceased, whose son and daughter-in-law avoided visiting his wife before her death, despite her medical condition, is entitled to stipulate provisions in his will that would limit or even deny their entitlement to a share of his estate.”
The judge added that the deceased did not seek to permanently disinherit his son, but rather created a conditional mechanism: if the son and his wife remained together for three years after the father’s death, the designated share would pass to their children. “In this way,” she wrote, “the deceased effectively kept his property within the family unit and ensured that the estate would reach the next generation, without benefiting those who, in his view, had damaged family relationships. I did not find that this provision exceeded the bounds of the law or contradicted public policy. In my opinion, this is a reasonable and legitimate provision, reflecting the will of the testator.”
The ruling addresses an unusual inheritance dispute over an estate worth tens of millions of shekels. The deceased, a father of two sons and a daughter, had stipulated that one son would inherit only if he divorced or was widowed.
The dispute erupted after the parents’ deaths and centered on a later version of the father’s will, drafted about eleven years ago. This version altered the balance between the heirs and triggered a legal battle between the two brothers, who opposed the revised will, and their sister. The court ruled that the father was entitled to change the provisions of a mutual will he had previously made with his wife after her death. It also found no evidence of undue influence. As noted in the ruling, the deceased established a mechanism that effectively delayed the transfer of assets to his son as long as he remained married.
The reason for the father’s dramatic decision, as detailed in the will, stemmed from a strained relationship with his daughter-in-law. The deceased accused her of not working and “preferring to sit at home and talk on the phone with her friends all day.” According to the will, this dynamic forced his son to work long hours and then drive his wife to social visits.
The central breaking point, according to the will, occurred during the final days of the children’s mother. The father claimed that the son told his mother he could not visit her due to his obligations to his wife.
In court, the son argued that the provisions were “obsessive,” intended to break up his family, and contrary to public policy. He also claimed that his sister and her husband had spread false allegations about his wife. The sister and her husband, represented by attorneys Boaz Kraus and Amit Elzam, rejected these claims. They argued that the will reflected the deceased’s right to reward those who supported him and to distance those who had harmed him.
The judge noted that the son himself admitted he had rarely visited his mother during her final hospitalization, citing work obligations as the sole breadwinner. He also confirmed that his wife had not worked throughout their marriage, despite attempts by his parents to help her find employment.
In her ruling, Judge Dahan stated that “the provisions of the will are not the product of whim or external influence, but rather reflect an authentic, coherent, and deliberate will of the deceased, formed over time out of deep and ongoing disappointment with his son’s conduct, particularly regarding his relationship with his wife, which directly affected the father-son relationship.”
She added that the deceased sought to prevent his estate from benefiting those he believed had damaged family ties, noting that this dynamic had even affected the son’s relationship with his late mother.
In conclusion, the court upheld the will, with the exception of two clauses, and ordered the two brothers to jointly pay legal costs totaling 120,000 shekels.
Attorney Rivka Hazan Cohen, representing the son, said: “We strongly disagree with the ruling, which presents a narrow and superficial view of the facts while ignoring essential evidence. This is a will that replaced an earlier, equal distribution between the children. It was drafted about a year before the father’s death, when he was ill and vulnerable to influence. The moral question, conditioning inheritance on the breakup of a family, warrants deeper judicial review, and an appeal will be filed.”
Attorneys Kraus and Elzam, representing the daughter, responded: “The law does not deal only with formalities, but with a person’s life. The deceased exercised his right to arrange his affairs, to reward those who supported him and to distance those who harmed him. The court fully respected his wishes.”
