Second, the amount required for the repayment of the debt by virtue of the first agreement included interest at a rate that exceeded the permissible under the provisions of the Fair Credit Law, in a manner that led to the demand being about 20% higher than the maximum amount under the law (see the comparison of the amounts on pages 20 and 43 of the expert's opinion).
- In more detail: when plaintiff 1 requested a "letter of intent" to ensure the removal of the lien against payment, counsel for the defendants replied that the direct debt according to the invoice is NIS 793,515 (after deducting amounts paid), and that there is "an indirect debt due to the liability of all the borrowers together and each separately – an amount that exceeds the value of the apartment" without specifying the amount (Appendix 18 to the affidavit of plaintiff 1).
Subsequently, plaintiff 1 was sent a "letter of intent" according to which upon receipt of the sum of NIS 1,200,000, the lien would be lifted, but no explanation was given as to the source of the amount. Certainly: this is a surprisingly round sum; It is significantly higher than the balance attributed to plaintiff 1 in the invoice, which includes its relative share of the debts by virtue of the two agreements; and it is certainly higher than its relative share of the debt by virtue of the second agreement, which alone could have been demanded in order to remove the lien. Not only that, but the letter relates indiscriminately to both the lien by virtue of the first agreement and the lien by virtue of the second agreement (Appendix 19 to that affidavit, and see the testimony of Boaz Barzilai on behalf of the escorts on page 51 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025).
Also, on November 23, 2020, following a legal proceeding taken by plaintiff No. 1, as stated in paragraph 16 Above, he was sent a letter of clarification regarding the balance of the debt. In this letter, it was noted, inter alia, that there were two apartment owners to whom the lenders had sent "letters of intent" in which they undertook to remove the lien if the debt attributed to them in the invoice would be paid, subject to a second-degree lien being recorded in respect of the balance of the total debt (Appendix 20 to the affidavit). It was not clarified what prevented plaintiff 1 from giving at least a similar letter.
- As for plaintiff No. 2, in paragraph 9 of his affidavit, this plaintiff claimed that he too petitioned to receive a "letter of intent", including through a lawyer, in order to take out a loan while mortgaging his apartment and repay his debt. Plaintiff No. 2 repeated this in his testimony, and then also stated that at a certain point he intended to sell the apartment, but the defendants' conduct prevented this (see pages 18-19 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025). Admittedly, plaintiff 2 did not present the demand letter itself, and this is particularly puzzling since a letter from the same lawyer on behalf of plaintiff 1 was presented, but on the basis of my impression of the plaintiff's testimony, I am of the opinion that it has been proven to the extent required in a civil trial, even if in a very borderline manner, that the plaintiff requested a "letter of intent".
In any event, it is reasonable to assume that if the plaintiff had been given such a letter, similar to the letter given to plaintiff 1, it would have included a demand for payment of a debt that exceeds plaintiff 2's relative share of the debt by virtue of the second agreement, and even embodies interest rates that exceed what is permitted under the Fair Credit Law.
- Plaintiff 3 (of whom Plaintiff 4 is his wife) stated in his affidavit that in January 2022 he applied "once more" to request a "letter of intent", but did not specify what the previous times were (paragraph 6 of the affidavit). In his testimony, plaintiff 3 reiterated that he had requested such a letter even earlier (page 26 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025).
In any event, the letter sent to this plaintiff in January 2022 indicated that the lenders were willing to remove the lien by virtue of the second agreement in the amount of NIS 1,514,179, which is the balance of his relative share of the debt under this agreement, and the lien by virtue of the first agreement to pay the full balance of the debt of the class members under this agreement, in the amount of NIS 189,739 (Appendix 1 to the affidavit of plaintiff 3; it should be noted that according to the ticket, The amount of debt attributed to plaintiff No. 3 by virtue of the two agreements was Only 1,050,140, and it was not clarified whether such a large increase in the amount of the debt by virtue of the second agreement as stated in the letter Since January 2022 stems only from the passage of time).