Thus, even to the extent that the plaintiff raised doubts as to the explanations she received prior to signing the loan agreement before Adv. Winder (and as detailed below, I do not believe that the existence of such doubt has been proven) - in any case the plaintiff did not present any version as to her signatures on the additional dates on which she signed the appendices to the loan agreement, an additional mortgage deed and the debt arrangements. With regard to these, I find it to be further emphasized that in each of the appendices and debt arrangements, the entire sequence of the loan is detailed prior to the signing of that appendix - i.e., it contains all the data that indicate the loan from its inception until that date. It should also be noted, as I have already noted above, that in the last debt arrangement signed by the plaintiff, there was also a detail regarding the realization of the apartment held by Goldberg, and it was also clarified (while emphasizing the aforesaid) that the realization of the Goldberg apartment does not detract from the defendant's right to realize the apartment of the plaintiff and her husband.
In light of all this, on the face of it, the plaintiff did not revoke the presumption deriving from her signatures on the loan agreement, as well as the additional mortgage deed as well as the appendices and arrangements following the loan agreement - and accordingly - the plaintiff is held to have signed the documents in light of her consent. Moreover, on the face of it, in these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be heard in the claims of deception made by her.
- Without derogating from my determination that the plaintiff is prevented from arguing against her signature - I am of the opinion that in any case from the evidence it emerged that the plaintiff understood the essence of the loan transaction, the nature of the pledge of her rights in her apartment, the protections granted to her by law and the significance of her waiver of them, but - since she relied on her husband (and documented - not with her eyes closed but with her eyes wide open) - she knowingly took upon herself these
I will begin with my determination that the plaintiff understood the nature of the transaction and the risks involved in it. This determination is based first of all on my direct impression of the plaintiff, who - contrary to the image she is trying to create for herself in the proceeding - I got the impression that she is an intelligent woman (who in the past served as a teacher - see page 70, line 10), eloquent and for whom the business world, and in particular real estate transactions, is no stranger to her.