The Honorable Judge: To him is it for M?
A: Yes.
Honorable Judge: Okay, please, attorney
Q: Now, we've left K., you came to another lawyer, didn't you see fit to produce a document, a description, a date, even for all the investment and investment, every shekel you mention, you mention a huge sum, in quotation marks, which is not true, of course
A: I used to work in the living room at home, so there's no place to put the money, I save it with my father, my parents..." (ibid., p. 19, paras. 25-38).
- The Applicant was questioned at length about her financial ability to bear the financing of the construction in terms of her income on the one hand, her young age of marriage, 19, and the construction expenses on the other hand, but she did not give clear answers. After a number of answers such as "I had some amount of money, I had a sum of money" (ibid., p. 20) that she had a sum of ILS 40,000 before the marriage (ibid., p. 21, paras. 1-4). She also claimed that she had jewelry worth ILS 60,000 and that the couple saved everything for the new home (ibid., pp. 20, paras. 7-14).
- In his cross-examination, the man claimed that it was the hot man who financed the construction:
"A: I don't know exactly, there wasn't, there was a demolition and Dad also ordered everything, invited someone who demolished the house, pulled it out, took out everything, everything, he prepared the whole sketch and everything, he prepared everything" (Par. of December 16, 2024, ibid., pp. 5, paras. 22-24).
- The woman did not attach any evidence to support her claim that she invested in the construction, or the sums paid from her account for the construction. I was under the impression that the woman's claims without references or supporting evidence could not help her in order to prove a real financial investment in the dwelling, which was built on the warm ground or in the apartment that is part of the building. It should also be noted that the process took a long time, from the eviction claim in the Magistrate's Court and the woman's claim in the Family Court, sufficient time was given for the submission of affidavits of the main witness, representative attorneys were replaced, and also from the filing of an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Prisoners until the dates of the proof, enough time has passed. The Applicant did not request an extension to submit additional evidence in response to the hot evidence. The conclusion is that the Applicant has no evidence of her investment in the construction of the apartment, neither expenses paid nor references to income that would enable the savings of money for the construction of the apartment. The woman's testimony also revealed that she used to receive fake pay slips, which led to a restitution claim against her from the National Insurance Institute:
"Q: And not only that, not only that, in unemployment you used fake coupons in incorrect documents and the National Insurance Institute repaid you to return the money, there is even documentation about it.