As stated, in my opinion, the condition of the removal of the lien on the payment of a debt by virtue of the first agreement is inconsistent with the provisions of the agreements, and certainly not when The demand is for payment The entire debt is even calculated in deviation from the provisions of the Fair Credit Law.
- As for plaintiffs 6-7, they did not testify and did not present their demands for a "letter of intent". However, plaintiff 7 is the sister of plaintiff 4, and plaintiff 6, who was reported to be an elderly person, was also perceived by the defendants themselves as belonging to the family of plaintiffs 1-4 (see the testimony of a representative accompanying Boaz Barzili, on page 52 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, lines 9-10). It is reasonable, therefore, that the defendants' approach, as expressed in their answers to plaintiffs 1 and 3, came to the attention of plaintiffs 6 and 7 and influenced their actions.
- I will add that from the testimony of the representative of the escort himself it emerged that the defendants imposed difficulties on the plaintiffs that they did not impose on other members of the class (ibid.). The representative's reservations about the plaintiffs were also evident in other parts of the testimony, against the background of his claim that this was an "opposition" that was waging a "world war" (page 53 of the transcript, lines 16-27). I do not express a position on the question of the mutual conduct and responsibility for the relationship that was created, nor on the question of whether the difference in the conduct of the plaintiffs in relation to other members of the class gives rise to an independent difficulty. I am also correct to assume that the defendants believed that they were acting against the plaintiffs in accordance with their rights under the agreements. I brought This Matter Only Because it may explain why the defendants did not go out of their way to scrutinize the plaintiffs' rights by virtue of the agreements and to verify that they acted in accordance with them, and this caused them not to act in this way.
- With regard to the removal of the liens, the defendants acted in contravention of the provisions of the agreements and the law, since they demanded the payment not only of each plaintiff's relative share of the debt by virtue of the second agreement, but also additional sums (including those that exceed the value of the apartments). In view of this demand, it is not surprising that the plaintiffs could not have executed transactions in their apartments that would enable them to repay the debts to the defendants, whether a sale transaction or a transaction of taking a loan while mortgaging the apartment.
- What is the implication of the defendants' conduct that is not in accordance with the agreements? By virtue of the principle of "restoring the situation to its former state", the defendants must place the plaintiffs in the situation they would have been in if they had acted as required (compare section 10 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970). The plaintiffs must prove what this situation is to the level of "reasonable certainty" only (see, for example, Civil Appeal 355/80 Natan Anisimov in Tax Appeal v. Tirat Bat Sheva Hotel Ltd., IsrSC 35(2) 800, 810 (1981)).
- In the case here, it appears that if the defendants had allowed the removal of the lien by paying each plaintiff's proportionate share of the debt by virtue of the second agreement, all the plaintiffs would have executed a transaction in their apartment that would have allowed them to repay their relative debts to the defendants in accordance with what was stated in the card signed by the board (including the debt attributed to each plaintiff by virtue of the first agreement). This is if only in order to stop charging them particularly high interest amounts by virtue of the agreements, and without derogating from their right to raise claims against the amount of debts on the substantive level. It is not for this reason that the vast majority of the other members of the class acted, and there is no reason to assume that the plaintiffs would have acted differently.
- In the case of plaintiffs 1-4, this hypothetical conclusion is supported by concrete evidence:
Plaintiff 1 sold his apartment and asked to receive a "letter of intent". The significance of such a letter was that the debt attributed to plaintiff 1 by virtue of the second agreement, which is secured by lien, would have been repaid by direct payment by the seller or the entity financing the transaction. Not only that, but it appears that plaintiff 1 sought to repay his relative debt to the defendants in full (see Appendices 15-18 to his affidavit);