"Adv. Meir: Mrs. Feldman, you didn't talk to her on the phone about the risks.
The witness, Adv. Winder: I don't know, on the phone I guess not, but at the signing ceremony I must have talked to her about it.
Adv. Meir: For what?
The witness, Adv. Winder: that she might lose her home.
Adv. Meir: Why?
The witness, Adv. Winder: Because she's mortgaging the house for a loan, which is a risky loan and if she doesn't meet it, she could be taken away, I told her, 'Understand, that's what you're signing now.'
Adv. Meir: Do you remember that for sure?
The witness, Adv. Winder: Unequivocally, I'm telling you, again, because I remember that at the time, I was really angry."
(Attorney Winder also repeated this testimony in his cross-examination on page 36, page 37, lines 30-33)
Adv. Winder also reiterated on page 38, lines 1-3:
"The witness, Adv. Winder: In this case, I explained to her even without what was written because, I say again, because of my prior acquaintance and because of the unique case in my opinion, that it was a loan they should not have taken."
- In addition, the plaintiff argued that Adv. Winder's testimony should not be trusted, since he admitted that he did not remember the details of the incident in which she signed. However, contrary to this claim of the plaintiff, Adv. Winder remembered the details of the incident as well as the transaction, including the amount of interest that was the subject of the loan (see his testimony as quoted above regarding the signing event, as well as his testimony from line 29 on page 41 to line 6 on page 42 regarding the details of the transaction). I will note that in her summary, the plaintiff claimed that, contrary to Adv. Winder's testimony in court that he remembered the signing event, in the recording in her possession, Adv. Winder admitted that he did not remember anything. The problem is that the plaintiff does not specify in her summaries that with regard to this alleged recording, there was a discussion during the evidentiary hearing (see as of page 49 of the transcript and yes, see specifically on page 53 of the transcript) in which it was determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to submit the recording, since until the date of the interrogation she had not disclosed its existence at all, and yes, she had not petitioned for its lawful submission. Given the aforesaid, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot rely on this recording, which was not submitted at all. For the sake of completeness and for the sake of good order, I will note that in the framework of his testimony, Adv. Winder explained that - insofar as he said that he did not remember anything in the recording, he was referring only to the document itself, which he should have seen first, but he remembered the loan and he also remembered 'the whole story' (see his testimony on page 55, lines 24-28).
- To this, it should be added that the plaintiff and her husband's approach to Adv. Winder was not accidental and was not a random lawyer chosen by them. However, this is the lawyer who handled the construction project of the building in which the apartment is located; He was the one who handled all the sales transactions of the three apartments that were sold in the same project (see the plaintiff's own testimony on page 71, lines 6-7 in this regard); he produced a certificate indicating the construction; and according to his testimony, he assumes that the plaintiff and her husband approached him because they knew him (his testimony on page 32, lines 31-32). Winder further emphasized that precisely in light of his prior acquaintance, and since it was not a regular mortgage, he explained more accurately the meaning of the loan (see his testimony on page 47, lines 25-20). Adv. Winder further testified that he had no contact with the defendant company, but only with Feldman - a fact that excludes the possibility of a conspiracy between him and the defendant, in which - ostensibly intentionally - Adv. Winder did not explain to the plaintiff the significance of the agreement in which she entered into and did not warn her about the risks involved in it.
- In addition, the plaintiff's claim - as substantiated by her claim that Adv. Winder did not perform his duties properly - that Adv. Winder did not receive any fees for verifying the signature and therefore that he was not motivated to perform his duties properly, which exists to the person receiving the fee - is not substantial. Thus, as appears from the testimony of Adv. Vinder in lines 23-25, page 31, according to the arrangement between him and Feldman, he was supposed to receive payment from the projects that were executed.
- The plaintiff further referred to the testimony of Adv. Winder, in which he confirmed that he was not familiar with the Fair Credit Law andthe Execution Law (see his testimony on page 34 of the transcript). Based on this testimony, the plaintiff claimed "as if she had found a great deal of booty" that this testimony of Adv. Winder supported the fact that he did not explain anything to her - since he confirmed that he was not familiar with the relevant statutory provisions. In this argument of the plaintiff I did not find any substance, given that as it appears at length in paragraph 12 of the judgment above, within the framework of section 24 of the special conditions for the mortgage deed - in any case the protections were detailed both under the Tenant Protection Law and under the Execution Law - including specifying the specific section of the law, detailing its contents, and yes, the significance deriving from the waiver of the protection. Thus, in any case, Attorney Winder is not required to be proficient in these defenses, but it is sufficient to study the agreement and read it in order to learn about the nature of the defenses and the nature of waiving them. In these circumstances, there is no reason why Attorney Winder did not know how to quote these defenses and the clauses related to them from his memory at the time of his testimony.
- Moreover, the plaintiff's version of Attorney Winder's conduct is puzzling, given her testimony in the cross-examination, according to which at the time of signing she did not understand what she was signing, but she expected the lawyer to explain to her what she did not understand - in contrast to her failure to present a satisfactory explanation of why - to the extent that she did indeed expect the lawyer to explain to her what she did not understand. She did not ask him to do so at the time of signing. Moreover, later in her testimony, the plaintiff retracted her claim that she expected her to receive an explanation and claimed that she trusted her husband, and in light of all this, not only did she not insist that she receive an explanation as to the nature of the documents she signed, nor did she read the documents. Thus, on page 77, lines 5-27, the plaintiff testified:
"The Honorable Judge Bibi: No, no, no, I asked a question, please answer it, who did you expect,