A: Nothing.
Q: Nothing?
A: Nothing, I would also help him with food. His and his children's.
Q: Tell me,
A: Do you think I would have agreed to the money he would have taken from me? I know it's not enough for him, but I was, he would take the food from my house." (Par. 16.12.24, p. 32, paras. 22-28).
- Regarding the hot woman, he claimed that she did not invest anything in building the apartment:
"Q: Okay. Didn't H. invest anything in building the apartment?
A: Not a single penny has been invested". (ibid., p. 40, paras. 1-2).
- With regard to the woman's occupation, Ham claimed in his cross-examination that she had no business as she claimed:
"Q: H., what was her employment?
A: What was she busy?
Q: What was it?
A: To talk and stories and everything that, what is not good, everything that is not good.
Q: What's not good? She was a business manager of
A: Which
Q: Hair?
A: What hair? Which? She took it in 2018, I don't know what date, how many months, and Shalom on Israel, started hanging out with the girls, and Shalom, the place closed. And if she does, she says she has space, where are her invoices, where are her taxes? Where?
Q: There wasn't, it was black, well.
A: There is no black here, when she says, I would make room, it has to be organized". (ibid., pp. 32, s. 30 to p. 33, s. 2).
The building permit from 2014 and the significance of the man's name on it
- The plaintiff did not file an orderly exhibit file, but rather noted as exhibits the pleadings in the related files and their appendices, except for contacting CPA expert Cohen and approving the transaction from the National Insurance Institute. The plaintiff attached to the statement of claim an application for a building permit, dated December 1, 2014 (Appendix C to the statement of claim on her behalf). In this application, which relates to the land that is the subject of the lawsuit, Lot 103, a permit was requested for the construction of "two residential units, two floors, the first floor and the second floor, above a commercial floor on the ground floor...". As registered applicants: K.N. (daughter of the father-in-law), A. (the mother-in-law), M. (daughter of the father-in-law), M. (the man), H. and A. The document is photocopied in poor quality, and it is impossible to distinguish who is registered as an applicant and who is the owner. and H. are registered owners of the plot, N., M. and M. are not registered. The Ham attached to his claim and to the appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Permits a permit marked by him as the "old building permit" (Appendix 10 to the Zoning Regulations) dated August 13, 2014, which was issued on December 28, 2014, in which the permit holder appears as the "K.A.S. T.I. ..." (which is not the hottest) and as the owner of the property, Mr. K.M. The permit relates to a lot ... which is not the lot that is the subject of the lawsuit, a lot ... Or... (See paragraph 10 of the appeal against the decision of the Registrar of the Hottable regarding the identification of the lot). In his interrogation, Hamam admitted that the document Appendix 10 to the appeal against the decision of the Registrar on his behalf has nothing to do with our matter: "This, this, this is not about this matter... It's my grandson, it's just paper, he brings it... Maybe they found it by mistake... It's a different house... 103, it is not the same house" (the investigation in the matter of Appendix 10, par. 16 December 2024, pp. 35, 30 to 36, 33). In addition, he attached a document that he also attached to the statement of claim, known by him as the "updated building permit" dated November 11, 2020, which was produced on November 25, 2020 (Appendix 9 to the appeal against the decision of the Registrar). The essence of the permit is "removing the name of the applicant from the 20190298 permit". The owners of the permit as it appears in it are K.N. and K.A. (hot) and the owners of the property are K.H., M. and A. It can be seen that the holders of the permit that were deleted are the man and M.
- The mother-in-law was also asked in his cross-examination about the building permit that was attached to the 2014 file, where the man's name is listed on the permit, and he claimed:
"Q: Why in the building permit in 2013