In any event, this requires legislation, and as long as this has not been done, we have before us the Roth ruling, according to which the authority of the head of the Execution Office to appoint a receiver for a specific property is limited, while the appointment of a receiver in accordance with Regulation 388 of the SDA Regulations, allows a court judge to authorize the receiver to perform many tasks, some of which are detailed in Regulation 388(a)(4), which was quoted in full above. In paragraph 41.
- Therefore, Sussman, when he discusses the affairs of "Execution of Honesty", cites as an example the need to appoint a receiver, on the part of the winner, when the debtor "He contracted with a certain person to buy a plot or a house, but did not register the property in his name(Yoel Sussman, Civil Procedure (Seventh edition, edited by Dr. Shlomo Levin, Jerusalem, 1995), p. 623). In this case, to avoid a situation in which the debtor has no interest in registering the property in his name, the foreclosure will not help, since "The debtor's honesty and foreclosure property can exist side by side forever, and the debt will not be repaid." (Name, Name). On the other hand, if a court appoints a receiver according to Regulation 388, which will receive powers from the court according to Regulation 388(a)(4)For then the receiver can, "To sue the seller and transfer the property to him, he will sign, in the place of the debtor, a deed of sale at the Land Registry Office, after which he, the receiver, will even be able to realize the property" (Name, Name).
- This example is an illustration of the fact that only a proceeding conducted by the receiver, under the supervision of a court, can bring with it the result that the legal proceeding strives for, i.e., the execution of a judgment and the prevention of the debtor's evasion, under various pretexts.
- Without setting any precedents, during the hearings in the case, Uzani felt that she heard things very close to the above example, insofar as the Respondent was concerned with the assets that the Respondent owned or that the Respondent was engaged in the purchase. Therefore, even from this point of view, the appointment of the receiver according to the Regulation 388will be effective in the case before me (these brief remarks do not detract from the chapter "From the general to the individual, where I will apply the factual data of the case before me to the normative foundation, which is presented in this chapter).
- Today, after the amendment of the regulations in 20001, the Regulation 387B of the SDA Regulations, which deal with temporary receivership, but can be applied and applied, all the more so, to receivership after a judgment, within the framework of "Execution of Honesty". Within the framework of this regulation, the court may grant the receiver very broad powers, as detailed In the Regulation 387B, which is different language (when it should be remembered that the list of the specified authorities In the Regulation 387B(c), is not an exhaustive list, since in the Collective Conflict III, appears the pair of words "Among other things"):
“)a) The court may, in an order, subject to the provisions of section A, appoint a temporary receiver (hereinafter - a receiver) for certain assets of the respondent in its possession or in the possession of a holder, if it is persuaded, on the basis of prima facie reliable evidence, that there is a real concern of significant harm to the value of the assets or that the respondent or another person on his behalf is about to disappear or destroy the assets, or that the assets were produced during the performance of the act or omission that is the subject of the action or was used to carry it out. and that the failure to grant the order will significantly burden the execution of the judgment.