"... It is evident that debt arrangements were made between the parties, but the defendant fulfilled them only partially. Most of the checks have not been repaid, and the debt in the books as of April 30, 2019 is ILS 4,664,419. On this issue, the defendant did not bring any evidence for his claim that the plaintiff should have returned the checks that were in her possession. I did not find any obligation and/or obligation on the part of the plaintiff to return checks that the defendant had given to her, including the check that is the subject of the proceeding in question, which were given at account of the defendant's debt to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's argument in this matter is rejected" (p. 7 of Exhibit N/1).
An appeal filed against the judgment given in a civil case 50923-07-18 - Rejected (see Exhibit N/2).
- In the course of his interrogation before me, the plaintiff confirmed the court's determination in the framework of the judgment on the transfer of a hearing in civil case 50923-07-18, according to which Paragon should not have returned the checks to him (pp. 25, paras. 18-19 of the minutes of the hearing of December 5, 2022).
- It is not superfluous to note that according to the plaintiff's own version, in the framework of the third arrangement reached between him and Paragon at the beginning of May 2014 or around that date, he delivered checks to Paragon, in respect of the debt to it, in the sum of ILS 4.9 million (4 checks for ILS 100,000 each); Because only one of those checks was paid; that an appeal after the debt was paid an additional $100,000 through the plaintiff's uncle in the framework of the fourth arrangement (and perhaps also other small sums - an addition of 15% to the current payments in July and August 2014) (see paragraphs 44, 50 and 54-58 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
- The plaintiff did not bring any evidence to support his testimony with respect to the agreement that he claims was reached in the framework of the fourth agreement, including his claim that Paragon should have returned to him all the previous checks that were given to it in the framework of previous arrangements (see paragraph 56 of his affidavit).
Moreover, and on the face of it, it was not detected by any economic logic that Paragon would relinquish the collateral it holds in the form of those checks in exchange for a vague undertaking to repay the debt by means of an addition of 15% to the current charge, and all this on the part of a person who repeatedly breached his obligations to pay the debt.
- The plaintiff did not bring evidence that could have supported his version that it was agreed between the parties that the checks would be drawn and deposited only at a later date agreed upon by him (see pp. 22, 32-36 and 33, paras. 5-9, 14-17 of the minutes of the hearing of December 5, 2022), and in any event, I found this argument to be vague, devoid of details, and not economically reasonable.
In fact, from the plaintiff's testimony, it could be assumed that according to him, it was agreed between the parties that the repayment of the debt was in accordance with a timetable that the plaintiff would set alone, without limitation and on the basis of the plaintiff's discretion alone. This is not a matter of reasonable economic conduct between a creditor and a debtor.
- Where the plaintiff breached the agreements with him, and the checks that were delivered by him were returned by the banking institution, without being paid, Paragon was entitled to deposit the checks that were delivered to it in connection with the debt of the plaintiff or Shira, provided that the total amount of the checks did not attempt to collect more than the total debt.
- In this regard, it should be emphasized that I am aware of the fact that Paragon deposited all the checks, despite the fact that some of them were given in the framework of later arrangements and were in fact ostensibly intended to replace previous checks.
In this regard, the following emerged from Mr. Dershewitz's interrogation: