Support for this assertion can be found first of all in the history of the residential apartment that is the subject of the hearing - a history in which the plaintiff showed proficiency in its details. As for this apartment, as detailed above, it is an apartment that was built by the plaintiff's husband - Feldman, after he purchased a roof in the building with building rights on it, he actually planned and built five apartments - of which the apartment is the subject of the hearing. As to this transaction and the source of the rights in the apartment that is the subject of the hearing, the plaintiff testified on page 84 of lines 13-26:
Adv. Giller: Ma'am, please say, you and your husband owned a number of apartments, which, as we have already learned here, were sold, in the same building, to Keller, Lakami and Labradugo, and you have the 165-square-meter penthouse apartment in which you live, what was the source of funding for the construction of those apartments? Where was the money taken?
The witness, Mrs. Feldman: I don't know exactly, the roof, we bought the piece of roof for a small amount, it was just that, and beyond that, where my husband got the money from, I don't know."
In other words, the plaintiff knew that the source of the residential apartment in which she herself lived and that she was the one whose realization is at the center of the discussion here - in a small investment for the purpose of purchasing a roof and completing the transaction by her husband (I will note that according to the plaintiff's husband, he completed the construction by selling the other three apartments).
Considering that the plaintiff and her husband obtained the residential apartment in which the plaintiff lives through her husband's commercial skills, it is not unreasonable to believe that the plaintiff trusted her husband and his abilities. Moreover, it can be said - as the defendant's counsel made difficult for the plaintiff in her testimony (see, for example, at page 137) that in the plaintiff's denial of her husband's debts, on the one hand, and her desire to hold on to the apartment, which is the result of similar transactions that he executed, on the other hand, the plaintiff is acting in bad faith, since she wishes to enjoy the rights, but she denies the debts on their side.
- Additional support for my assertion that in real time the plaintiff relied on her husband's skills and not on the alleged misrepresentation that was presented to her can be found in the plaintiff's testimony - in response to the question of how she knew in real time that the loans could not be repaid, a question to which she replied that she knew about it in retrospect, since everything collapsed (see her testimony at pages 102-103). This testimony shows that in real time the plaintiff gave insurance to her husband, but after the business collapsed, she claimed "in retrospect" that the loan was taken at risk.
Moreover, the fact that in real time the plaintiff's husband did not believe, and as a result, neither did the plaintiff - since she relied on her husband and his abilities - that there was a risk to the realization of the couple's residential apartment, is also supported by the testimony of the plaintiff's husband. Thus, from line 22 on page 121 to line 18 on page 122, Feldman testified in response to questions about why the amount of the loan was increased and as to the chances of repayment: