"Adv. Giller: Now look, your husband in his affidavit, which you also submitted as part of the affidavits of the main witness, in paragraph 5 he says, "At the time of the loan, I told my wife that the loan was for the purpose of refinancing an existing mortgage and for the purpose of the activity of the Builders and Protected Company Ltd.", he told you that it was for the purpose of the activity of the Builders and Protected Company?
The witness, Mrs. Feldman: Apparently he said, but I understood that he needs it to, what he takes out as a mortgage is for protected builders, I take, what I am for my apartment.
Adv. Giller: How did you understand that?
The witness, Mrs. Feldman: Very simple, why mix it?
Adv. Giller: No, he told you that he was taking it for the purpose of refinancing the mortgage and for the activity of builders and protectors, did you know at the time of taking the mortgage that the money was also for the benefit of builders and protected?
The witness, Mrs. Feldman: I knew that he had issues with builders and shelters, I didn't think for a moment that it would mix my apartment inside."
From what has been described, it is clear that prior to the signing of the loan agreement and its appendices, the plaintiff was provided with all the relevant information, including information relating to the fact that the loan was taken both for the purpose of refinancing the mortgage at Bank Leumi and for the purpose of the activity of the Builders and Protected Company, and therefore this information was known to the plaintiff.
- However, according to the plaintiff, the disclosure of the relevant data by her husband should not be attributed to any significance, since she claimed that she signed the documents while relying on her husband with her eyes closed, even though in practice she did not understand the nature of the loan as well as the risks involved in it. As for this, see paragraph 9 of the affidavit and see her testimony on page 73, lines 4-6. The plaintiff further testified there, in lines 7-13, that she agreed to recycle the mortgage at a higher interest rate because she relied on her husband (i.e., that she was also given information regarding the discrepancies between the loan she was taking and the mortgage to Bank Leumi, and she agreed to this), and she also testified there in lines 28-32 that she did not read the documents because she trusted her husband.
After examining the evidence that was presented, I found in the very first part of the plaintiff's claim - that is, in my view, the plaintiff did indeed sign the documents out of reliance on her husband, but I do not find it possible to accept the second part of the plaintiff's claim that she relied on her husband "with her eyes closed", i.e., without being aware of the risks involved in the loan. However, in my view, the plaintiff relied on her husband while understanding the risks involved in the loan (as supported by the evidence already detailed in paragraphs 94 and 95 above) and in addition - in view of her past experience, in view of her husband's previous successes in his business and in view of her belief that he would succeed in his business this time as well. In other words, this is not a case of someone who did not read the matter in light of the deception that her husband misled her, or out of a mistake that she made a mistake in the state of affairs - but rather someone who believed - as her husband believed - that his business would succeed, as they did in the past - and therefore that even though there is a risk, it will not be realized in practice.