A: For the divorce, not for the divorce, it's my home, I do what I want inside the house. No one is forcing me to register with this or that name." (p. 16.12.24, p. 36, s. 35 to p. 37, s. 11).
- It was therefore found that in submitting the application for a building permit for the building in which the apartment is the subject of the dispute, the father also wrote the names of his children, M. the man, and the daughters N. and M., and in 2020, in connection with the divorce proceedings between the couple, he contacted the Planning and Building Committee ... And he asked to remove the name of his son, the man, and the name of M. However, the timing of the change is not close to the divorce of the parties or the opening of court proceedings. In any event, the mention of the man's name together with the father-in-law, his sisters and the owners of rights in the plot, the father-in-law's uncles, does not establish a proprietary right to the property or part thereof. It has already been determined that these are different laws, and the planning and building committees do not determine property rights. "A building permit is not evidence for determining ownership rights in the land, even though it can attest to rights of possession and use" (see, for example, Civil Case (Haifa Magistrate) 79853-12-20 Tareq Agbaria v. um al-Fahm Municipality, [Nevo], 9 July 2025).
- A similar case was partly heard before the Honorable Judge Ne'eman in a family case (Krayot) 2182-09-09 H. v. M.H., [Nevo], 30 July 2012 (hereinafter: "FC 2182-09-09"). There the father-in-law was the owner of the rights, but the building permit was appealed differently. There, Ham explained that he had registered this for tax reasons. Thus it was held: "The fact that the building permit of the apartment was issued in the husband's name is not enough, and it is not enough that the plaintiff believed that the apartment belonged to the husband as detailed in her testimony."
- I reject the reliance on the man's registration with his two sisters and uncles, in addition to fighting for the building permit, as evidence of rights beyond a permit.
- Ham and the man attached leases that they allegedly entered into between them, without the wife's signature, in relation to living in the apartment from 2018. I did not find it appropriate to attribute weight to these contracts one way or the other. The woman did not sign the contracts and it was not proven that money was paid as rent. The man confirmed that the purpose of the contracts was to present them to the local council for the payment of property taxes (Fr. 12.24, pp. 3, 38-39), and it was not proven that this was done.
- Despite the father-in-law's lengthy interrogation and his versions regarding the lease contract or the permission agreement, the clear conclusion is that the woman and the man received permission from him to live in the apartment, and this was canceled only after the filing of the eviction claim:
"The Honorable Judge: When you came to her father,