As a result of all the aforesaid and described, the plaintiff is not the one who this is the first time that she is taking out a loan that is collateral for her from the mortgage of her residential apartment, but rather that she is a person who has already taken such a loan in the past and testified that at the time she took such a loan, she was given all the explanations regarding the nature of the loan and the risks involved in it by Bank Leumi - therefore, this is nothing but the plaintiff who knows correctly from the outset the nature of the loan secured in the mortgage and the risks involved in it.
- To this, it should be added that the apartment that is the subject of the hearing was built by the plaintiff's husband - Feldman - as part of a TAMA transaction in which he purchased the roof of a building, planned and built five residential apartments on it, including two apartments that remained owned by the couple - the apartment that is the subject of the hearing and the apartment held by Goldberg (see in this regard the plaintiff's testimony as detailed below in paragraph 96 of the judgment). During the execution of the project, three of the apartments built by the plaintiff's husband were sold, and since the land on which these apartments were built (the roof) was jointly owned by the couple, the plaintiff had to sign many documents related to the sale of these apartments, including sale agreements, requests to register warning notes, as well as mortgage deeds taken by the purchasers. (See also the testimony of Adv. Winder on this matter, on lines 11-14).
Moreover, as claimed by the defendant - in the framework of the proceeding conducted by Goldberg, the plaintiff expressed a positive position and accordingly an agreement was signed between her and her husband and Goldberg, in the framework of which the rights in the apartment held by Goldberg were sold to Goldberg - i.e., she showed prima facie proficiency in this transaction (even though on the merits of these claims were rejected by me) and did not claim that she knew nothing or was not familiar with the transaction - as she claims in the proceeding here.