Caselaw

Talham (Krayot) 17970-04-23 H.A. v. M.K. - part 14

January 1, 2026
Print

Q: That she will go

The Honorable Judge: That's all.

Q: To live in a rented apartment?

A: I didn't tell them about renting, not about anything.

Q: You told her that she would come and live in your apartment.

A: No.

Q: Right?

A: Wrong, not that we will give it to her, she will live with me, then, she will take my house.

The Honorable Judge: No,

A: You will live

The Honorable Judge: That's two questions.

A: This, it will live.

Honorable Judge: You told her father

A: Temporary,

Honorable Judge: That she can live in the house above you?

A: You will live temporarily until

The Honorable Judge: OK.

A:        Let them get along.

Honorable Judge: OK, excellent.

...

Q:        You mean that H.  didn't know that she was in the house with the permission?

A:        No, she knows she doesn't have a home.

Q:        How does she know?

A:        She knows she doesn't have a home, and her husband knows he doesn't have a home.

Q:        Her husband knows, we'll leave it.

A:        Well?

Q:        How does she know she doesn't have a home?

A:        What, I, I have to know, she'll know or not, it's my business?

Q:        But she lives in an apartment.

A:        She lives in a temporary apartment.

Q:        How would she know that it was temporary?

A:        Temporarily, she knows it's temporary.

Q:        Did you tell her? When did you tell her?

A:        She knows, what is it, I told her, didn't you tell her?" (ibid., pp.  38, s.  39-p.  39, s.  38).

Is the residence permit the pen?

  1. As stated, I was under the impression that the right given to the woman is of the "voluntary" type, i.e., a right without consideration and without a time limit. The validity of the right is fixed in case law, and it is permanent and can be revoked:

"A license granted without consideration can be revoked in the blink of an eye upon the landowner's declaration that he does not wish to continue granting the license." (Civil Appeal 602/84 Yosef Rivo v.  Avraham Gal (published in the databases, [published in Nevo], October 2, 1985).  This ruling was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 9261/05 (published in Nevo on April 2, 2006) when it held: "Even if the District Court accepts their claim that an implicit license was created in the land by virtue of their many years of holding, it is a free license that the licensee may withdraw at any time (see, for example, Civil Appeal Authority 1156/02 Khir v.  Lidai, IsrSC 57(3) 949)" (references in the judgment in the Supreme Court (Kiryat Shmona) 7228-02-22 S.A.  v.  P.A., [Nevo], July 18, 2023).

Previous part1...1314
1516Next part