In the judgment quoted above, the Honorable Justice Ran Arnon held, in paragraphs 107 and 108:
"It is plain that even if the defendants have created reliance as a result of their holding of the apartment for many years, it is a reliance on which it has nothing to rely on. The permission given to them to live in the apartment is the apartment authority, and the plaintiff, who granted the permission, is entitled to withdraw it at any time.
I should note that the feeling created by eviction claims of this type is not always comfortable. These are couples who have been living in the house for decades, who may have seen it as their home, they are raising their children at home, and apparently, had it not been for the outbreak of the crisis between the couple, they would have continued to live there today. At the same time, a sense of discomfort is one thing and a legal consequence is another. The courts have repeatedly followed the precedent that even decades of living in the property do not confer property rights in the property."
- According to case law, the right to a residence permit is a right that can be revoked at any stage, therefore, bread has the right to revoke the right to live in the house that the spouse or woman owns.
Is the woman entitled to compensation due to renovation or investments in the property?
- According to the case law, when the betterment of an external property was done as a result of a joint effort and with the financing of the parties, this "betterment" constitutes a balanced asset (see: Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 1279/07 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo] (28 June 2010)). BFamily File (Jerusalem) 21342/04 S. v. D.S. [Nevo] (June 24, 2008) was held in this context as follows:
"Betterment resulting from the work of the property owner, his spouse or both spouses, ... During the marriage... The result of the investment of the couple or one of them, for which the property was improved, can be regarded as an addition to the asset, but as it stands on its own, i.e., a new and independent asset, which was obtained as a result of the investment and actions of a spouse or spouses that was created during the marriage as a result of the effort of one of the spouses during the marriage and as such - to a balanced asset... Even in circumstances in which actual work was invested by the property owner and only by him, and as a result of this investment the property was improved, the improvement will be included in the balance of the assets, even though the property itself will remain outside it."
- I got the impression that if the woman had proved that the house belonged to the man, it was possible that the woman would have been entitled to a return on the investment invested by both parties in the house (or alternatively she would have been entitled to half of the rights in the house), but in this case it was not proven, as stated, that the house was given to the man alone or to the couple. Nor is it claimed that renovations have been carried out in the house since its construction.
- In view of all of the above, together with the fact that the house belongs to bread, I am under the impression that it is not possible to impose an obligation on the man or the father-in-law to return sums of money to the wife due to investments that the wife claims the couple invested in the property, and it should be clarified that the amount of the investments has not been proven and claimed as a presumption.
- I also reject the woman's claim in the statement of claim regarding a recording sent to her by the man, in which he promised her that she would receive her rights from the apartment after he contacted the appraiser (paragraph 16 of the statement of claim). The recording was never submitted lawfully or at all, it was not transcribed, despite the fact that the hot ISA contacted the woman's attorney at the time with a request for disclosure of documents, including the recording (Appendix 27 to the appeal against the decision of the hot registrar).
Compensation in the event of cancellation of the permission
- With regard to the question of revoking the license, there were changes in the case law with the passage of time, and in a number of cases (including in the family case 2182-09-09 above [Nevo]) compensation was awarded for the revocation of the license. Finally, the Supreme Court clarified the matter in Family Appeal 1894/16 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo] (May 10, 2017) by the Honorable Justice N. Sohlberg:
"Thus, in the framework of a discussion of the 'fate' of a real estate authority, the court must discuss and decide a number of questions: one, whether the authority has apartmentd, or not; the second - if it is determined that the apartment authority - whether it was cancelled or not; and the third - if it is determined that the permission has been revoked - should its cancellation be conditioned on the payment of compensation? When it is determined that an authority is the apartment and is canceled, and that compensation must be awarded for its cancellation - and even if these determinations were based on considerations of justice - then the path outlined in the case law must be followed and compensation must be determined only at the value of the licensee's investment in the property and its improvement."
- In Family Appeal (Haifa District) 16551-16-19 Anonymous v. Anonymous et al. [Nevo] (January 9, 2020), NessIon was awarded compensation for the revocation of a license to live in the property on the basis of an unequal division under Section 8(2) of the Property Relations Law (majority opinion) or the uniqueness of the relationship in the traditional family in the Arab sector.
- In a case law that dealt with the displacement of a license in Arab society, it was determined that recognition of an unalienated authority is an exception. The judgment of the Haifa District Court Family Appeal 21082-07-19 (unpublished) was confirmed inTax Appeal 7150/20 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo]3.21), and the following is quoted in the tax appeal from the judgment in the District Court:
"It is precisely in traditional society that recognition of the irrevocable property is liable to create a slippery slope, in which the fabric of family rules, the joint 'fund,' which on the one hand makes it easier to accumulate a roof over one's head and on the other hand provides protection to parents who sometimes lack an economic basis, omit the ground and 'change' the rules of conduct." It was further described that the District Court ruled that "the respondent's children recognize her rights as owners and the owner of the right to decide who will live in the property and who will not; that the reason for the Applicants' eviction consists both of the construction activities they carried out illegally and of their attitude towards the Respondent; and that it has not been proven that the scope of the applicants' investments in the apartment constitutes the main part of it."
- In accordance with the current and binding rulings, there is no longer room for awarding reliance damages, but only compensation for the proven betterment of the recipient of the land authority from the landowner. In addition, it was determined that the following shall be shall:
"The trial courts to base an obligation to pay compensation on the basis of solid evidence, opinions (appraisals) and accurate calculations" (see: HCJ (Nazareth) 39735-12-19 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo] (October 14, 2022) (hereinafter: "The Anonymous case") as well as inTax Appeal 1894/16 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo] (May 10, 2017) andin Tax Appeal 7150/20 Anonymous vs. Anonymous [Nevo] (March 21, 2021)).
- After reviewing the evidence and testimonies of the parties, I have no evidence that she bears the construction expenses of the residence on behalf of the woman or the man. There is no dispute that the building built on the lot was built during the period of the marriage, and improved the rights to the land. However, the possibility that appeared in the case law relating to an unequal division in accordance with section 8(2) of the Property Relations Law is not appropriate for the case at hand, in which it is not an external asset belonging to one of the spouses, but rather an asset that is owned by the father-in-law, the father of the man. In these circumstances, I did not find any basis for granting the woman any rights in the apartment or compensation.
Conclusion
- I accept the claim for the removal of the hand, and reject the woman's claim against the man and the hot man.
- Given the duration of residence and the residence of the minors shared by the woman and the man with the mother, I set the date of removal of the hand and the return of the apartment to the possession of the child for four months from today.
- The woman will pay legal expenses and attorney's fees in the amount of ILS 12,000 together with a tax appeal and the man in the amount of ILS 8,000 plus VAT.
- The judgment will be permitted to be published after omitting identifying details and proofreading corrections if necessary.
The secretariat will transmit the judgment to the parties' attorney, and will close the two files in the heading.