Copied from Nevot's affidavit:
- Plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed two separate affidavits but, naturally, similar. At the evidentiary hearing on March 10, 2025, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted a summary report from the neurological clinic about plaintiff 1, according to which plaintiff 1 was unfit to be interrogated due to an illness he suffered from, and therefore his affidavit was withdrawn from the file.
- Plaintiff No. 2 stated that on August 2, 1982, the couple purchased the rights in the apartment from the Ralfo Company, an apartment located above an elevated foundation floor in sub-plot 57, Block 28050, Plot 30. The building in which the apartment is located was built by defendant 1 as part of a government initiative and was sold to defendant 3 by it even before the building was occupied. Subsequently, defendant 3 sold the rights to the couple while undertaking that no use was made of the apartment and that it was not aware of any defects.
- To the best of the plaintiffs' knowledge, at a certain stage, defendant 1 and defendant 2 merged, and therefore defendant 1 was liquidated.
- In January 2014, after they decided to upgrade the kitchen, they discovered a serious engineering failure that originated during the construction of the building. The floor of the living room in the apartment is only 5 cm thick. Later, as described in the statement of claim and cited above in this judgment, the couple was forced to leave the apartment and repair the defects in order to strengthen the structure.
- The plaintiff further declares that since the purchase of the apartment, defendant 1 was presented as the person who initiated and built the building, whether by herself or through an executing contractor, defendant 1 prepared the specifications that accompanied the sale of the apartment and contacted all the tenants regarding its actions to register the building as a condominium. The specifications published by defendant 1 are attached to the affidavit and are marked as Exhibit Defendant 1's application to the plaintiffs in connection with its actions to register the building as a condominium is attached to the affidavit and marked asExhibit 13.
- An engineer on behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr. Lev Nisman, declares that the plaintiffs contacted him after the contractor who worked in their apartment detected subsidence and unusual movement in the floor of their apartment. At their request, he visited the apartment and discovered that the floor of the living room in the apartment was only 5 centimeters thick. When he believed that this was a serious engineering failure that originated during the construction of the building, he recommended contacting the engineer, Mr. Shai Shitrit, for an engineering opinion.
Affidavits of defendants 1 and 2:
- The building engineer on behalf of the defendants, Mr. Eli Arkin, declares that he serves as a project supervisor for defendant 2. On September 5, 2021, he visited the plaintiffs' apartment with an expert engineer on behalf of the defendants. The visit revealed that additional construction had been carried out in their apartment, on a large scale, to the best of his knowledge, without a building permit. Among other things, a warehouse was built that deviated from the building line, and a balcony was built on the roof of the warehouse.
- From the outset, there was a space under the plaintiffs' apartment, at the top of the room, which is an original part of the building. At the same time, significant excavation work was carried out while pouring walls and a concrete floor to deepen the space. To the best of his understanding, the additional excavation work affected the stability and condition of the building. The likelihood that this is a leakage of fill sand is slim.
- An examination of the building file at the Jerusalem Municipality shows that the floor in the building was designed as a suspended floor with an upper concrete slab 5 cm thick, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that this is the plate encountered by the professionals.
Reviews: