"Finally, the appellant appeals that the learned President on duty did not accede to her request to appoint a manager or receiver to manage the said gas station in place of the respondent. According to her, the respondent is frustrating with his own hands any reasonable chance of realizing his share or part of the estate in this station at a fair price, since in his failed management the station does not bring profits. These are factual claims that are denied by the respondent, and which the Court of Appeals has no power to decide. The learned President on duty wrote in his decision that if the appellant is correct in her arguments, then 'it is clear that the matters cannot remain as they are, and there are... To realize the property as long as there is still a chance to sell the business at a reasonable price.' In my opinion, the law applies to him in this as well. The receiver appointed by him, just as he is charged with 'taking over' her rights towards the appellant herself, he is also charged with 'taking over' the appellant's rights vis-à-vis the respondent - and her right to preserve the value of the business and even to increase it, including it. This right can only be exercised by practical concern that the respondent will indeed manage the business efficiently and faithfully as it should be.
The result is that the appeal will be rejected and the appointment of the receiver will be approved.
The appellant will bear the respondent's expenses in this appeal; However, in order to note our displeasure at the sloppy form (especially in terms of spelling) in which the respondent's arguments were submitted to us, his expenses were set at a total sum of only 300 pounds."
- Thus, summed it up, succinctly, the President of the Tel Aviv District Court, Judge Uri Goren, in his book, Issues in Civil Procedure (Ninth Edition, Tel Aviv, 2007), pp. 586-587, The Rules Arising from the Judgment in the Cohen-Reich, above:
"A creditor requested the appointment of a receiver for the purpose of 'execution of good faith,' i.e., for the purpose of exercising the debtor's rights as an heir. The appointment of the receiver was indeed approved, in order to incentivize the debtor to take steps to divide the inheritance, and thus to allow the creditor to 'bite' the heir's share in the estate. It seemed that the proceeding of the 'Execution of Honesty' was the only way to realize the debt.