Did you waive an inheritance? You may not be able to change your mind
A recent court ruling clarifies the significance of renouncing an inheritance and the difficulty of reversing it. Would it be correct to allow conditional renunciation in certain cases?
The Inheritance Law, enacted more than 60 years ago, still stands the test of time. It is true that it needs amendments, but in its essence, it is a sound law. The rule is that there is no right to inherit and no obligation to inherit. This is the basis of the law. The freedom of testation permitted by law is absolute, and every testator can bequeath their property to whomever they wish. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of testation is so broad that it allows a spouse who signed a mutual will to draft a new one, even if their spouse has become demented and cannot be aware of the dramatic change (this refers to wills drafted before August 1, 2005).
Since there is no obligation to inherit, the law allows a person to renounce an inheritance and be considered as someone who was not an heir from the outset. This happened recently in a ruling by Jerusalem Magistrate's Court Judge Eran Avital on June 30. It concerns a deceased person who left half of an apartment shared with his wife, and the only daughter renounced the part she inherited (a quarter of the apartment) in favor of her mother. Five years later, the daughter realized that her mother would not bequeath the apartment to her, and therefore filed a lawsuit to cancel the renunciation. Her claim was rejected, and she was ordered to pay the mother's legal costs.
"The court emphasized that it is possible for a daughter to renounce her father's inheritance when relations are normal, and at some stage, these relations may hit a dead end. However, one should not allow a withdrawal from a renunciation affidavit just because of this, or allow an heir to wake up years later and claim that their mother deceived them."
It is easy to understand why a child would in good faith renounce the inheritance of one of their parents in favor of the surviving parent. It is logical, but in my opinion, it would have been appropriate to create a mechanism to protect someone who renounced in favor of a parent if, in the end, they do not receive their share of the asset back. It is important to emphasize that the law prohibits conditional renunciation. This means that someone who renounces an inheritance in favor of a parent cannot condition the waiver on the asset returning to them in the future.
Despite the feeling of injustice, it cannot be said that the mother deceived her daughter, as the mother's freedom of testation is unlimited. But would it not have been correct to allow conditional renunciation, at least within the nuclear family? The Inheritance Law strives to keep assets within the family. The result of the ruling is dramatic: anyone who renounces parts with their inheritance forever and without any reservation. Therefore, my recommendation is not to sign an inheritance renunciation at all, or at least to take into account the possibility that it will not be possible to reverse it in the future.
