| Civil Case 7137-09-18 Atias et al. v. Goren et al.
Exterior Case: |
| Before | The Honorable Judge Yaakov Danino
|
|
|
The plaintiffs: |
1. Netanel Attias 2. Esther Levy Vyshevsky 3. Yaakov Hurwitz 4. Ariel Cohen 5. Avishai Junger 6. Sidon Construction 7. Carmit Shimoni Cohen All of them by Attorney General Mordechai Weiss |
|
|
Against
|
||
| The defendants: | 1. Alon Goren – Represent Himself
2. Zvika Mualem, Attorney – Represented Himself 3. Shlomi Dahari By Attorney Yaron Yativ 4. Keren Yosef Haim in a Tax Appeal By Attorney Alon Goren
|
|
| Be'er Sheva District Court |
| Judgment
|
The plaintiffs purchased agricultural land from defendant 4, the owner of which is defendant 1. In addition to the claims raised against defendants 1 and 4, the lawsuit was also filed against defendant 2, the counsel for some of the plaintiffs, as well as against defendant 3, the real estate broker, who served as a thread connecting the seller and her owner to those plaintiffs.
A lease agreement was signed between the Israel Lands Administration (as it was then called; hereinafter: "the Administrator") and defendant 4, in the framework of which defendant 4 leased the agricultural land parcels that are the subject of the lawsuit, as well as many other plots of agricultural land in the same area. Subsequently, defendant 4, through defendant 1, sold these plots of land to the plaintiffs. The core and extent of this claim lies in the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants concealed from them the fact that in accordance with the lease agreement, in the event of a change of designation, the parcels of land that they purchased from defendant 4 return to the manager's lap, and that in such a case the plaintiffs are entitled to limited compensation in accordance with the provisions of the law. According to the plaintiffs, if they had known about this contractual stipulation, they would not have purchased the various plots of land, and therefore they petitioned for compensation as will be explained below. Ultimately, when they were concerned, it was: the designation of the plots of land was changed and the administration took the lands back into his possession while providing fairly low compensation to the plaintiffs.
Although the factual argument to be decided is quite limited, as will be explained below, the chronological sequence that serves as the basis for the purchase of the land plots by the plaintiffs is built of many links in a sophisticated and extensive fabric, the result of premeditated thought by defendant 1, a lawyer by profession. Although factual and legal questions derive from this conduct, counsel for the plaintiffs preferred to expand almost the entire range of grounds and remedies recognized in the statute book. Naturally, I will not be able - nor would I wish - to relate to every ground, unless its outcomes dictate the required legal treatment against the background of the various evidence and testimonies recounted by the parties throughout the proceeding.