A disinheritance clause (tniyat silukin) in a will is a provision stating that anyone who contests the will or sues the estate will lose what the deceased left them. In a judgment dated October 18, 2026, the Supreme Court set out, for the first time, detailed tests for enforcing such a clause. The main takeaway: the clause does not automatically apply to everyone who has filed a claim. The opinion was written by Justice Alex Stein, joined by Justices David Mintz and Yael Willner.
What Happened in the Case
The deceased, a businessman, died in 2018. For many years he lived with his partner as common-law spouses (yeduim batzibur), and they later married. In his will he left his children his shares in a particular company, and he left his partner works of art and certain percentages in other companies. The will included a clause providing that anyone who contested it would receive nothing from the estate except NIS 1.
The widow did not seek to annul the will, and the will was probated. At the same time, she filed a property claim: she argued that, by virtue of their years of life together, she was entitled to part of the increase in the company's value. The children sought to enforce the disinheritance clause against her.
The Family Court held that she was entitled to 32% of the company's shares or their value, about NIS 20 million, and at the same time enforced the clause. The District Court reduced the amount to about NIS 6 million and, by a majority, left the disinheritance in place. The result: the widow received her property rights and lost everything her husband had left her.
Two Types of Clauses
The Supreme Court distinguished between a “no-challenge” clause and a “no-claim” clause. The first applies to someone who attacks the validity of the will itself, for example by arguing that the testator lacked capacity, was subjected to undue influence or was the victim of fraud. The second applies to someone who claims assets from the estate based on an independent right of their own, such as a spouse asserting rights under the Spouses (Property Relations) Law, 5733-1973. The widow's claim belongs to the second type.
But according to the judgment, the classification alone is not decisive. A property claim may reveal that the testator was mistaken about the extent of his assets and believed that all the assets registered in his name belonged to him. To respect his wishes, it is necessary to determine what he knew when he wrote the will. Justice Stein noted that about 30 years had passed since the Supreme Court last addressed the issue, and that it was appropriate to revisit it.
Three Tests for Enforcing a Disinheritance Clause in a Will
Offer. The testator knew that the beneficiary might have rights of their own and chose to present them with a choice: accept what the will provides or sue. In that situation the clause is enforced, even if the claim was reasonable and filed in good faith. The testator may attach a condition to the gift, and the beneficiary has no vested right to receive it without the condition.
Mistake. The testator was mistaken about the extent of his assets. Here the mistake provisions of the Succession Law, 5725-1965 apply, and the court asks what the testator would have provided had he known the true situation. According to the judgment, setting aside the entire will should be avoided as far as possible.
Uncertain offer. It is unclear whether the testator knew about the rights or was mistaken. In that case, priority goes to the beneficiary's right of access to the courts: the beneficiary keeps their share if they prove that the claim was reasonable and filed in good faith, meaning that it rested on a serious cause of action with a real chance of success. Losing the claim does not make it frivolous, but a sincere belief without a reasonable basis is not enough.
The Court also held that broad wording, such as “for any reason whatsoever,” does not settle the question, because it does not prove that the testator understood what he was requiring the beneficiary to give up. The case was remanded to the Family Court to examine what the deceased knew about his assets and about his wife's rights. The Supreme Court did not rule that the widow will receive both her property rights and her share under the will. It ruled that her share cannot be taken from her without this examination.
Beneficiaries Considering a Claim Against the Estate
Start with the wording. Check whether the clause refers only to contesting the will and its probate, or also to any claim against the estate. That is the first question the court will ask.
Next, gather evidence of what the testator knew: agreements between the spouses, registration documents, correspondence and testimony about conversations in which the assets were discussed. This evidence will determine whether the case falls into the offer, mistake or uncertain offer category.
Before filing, examine the claim thoroughly. A claim without a real basis could cost you your share of the inheritance, so compare what the deceased left you with what you could obtain through the claim, on the cautious assumption that the clause will be enforced.
Writing a Will
If you want to include a disinheritance clause, state explicitly what it covers: only objections to probate of the will, or also property claims by a spouse. If you know that your spouse may have rights in assets registered in your name, say so in the will. Documented knowledge of this kind brings the case closer to the offer category, in which the clause is enforced. Spouses can also settle the rights between them during their lifetimes, for example in a property agreement (heskem mamon), and in this way reduce disputes after death.
If you have received a will with a disinheritance clause, or you are drafting a will and considering including one, you can contact our office in Modiin or Tel Aviv for a review of your case.
Source: Globes (Hebrew), 18.10.2026; Bizportal (Hebrew), 18.10.2026; Ynet, Piskadin section (Hebrew), 22.10.2026
First published in Hebrew. Read the Hebrew original