"The learned President on duty saw fit before him to accede to the respondent's request and appoint a receiver whose role would be to 'seize the appellant's property and take control of her rights' in order to bring about the execution of the judgment in its entirety. In order to avoid doubts, the learned President on duty added and explained that for the purpose of 'seizure of the property', the receiver would be entitled to take the necessary steps to bring about the division of the estate among the heirs. Even against this authorization, the appellant is full of arguments like a pomegranate: her main resentment is that her honor and status as the administrator of the estate has been harmed, without law and without authority, whose discretion as to whether or not to realize and distribute the estate, has now been transferred from the world in view of the obligation imposed on the receiver to exercise and distribute it.
In my opinion, the law was with the learned president on duty in his team what he commanded. Not only is the matter entirely subject to his discretion, but as the proven circumstances of this particular matter it seems to me that the execution of good faith is the only way open even before the court in order to do justice and prevent injustice to the extent possible. The dignity and status of the appellant as the administrator of the estate will take their place: The receiver will first have to approach her and incentivize her (literally) to do as she is obligated. and shall perform her duties under section 82 of the Inheritance Law; and only if she does not wish or is unable to do so; within a reasonable time, to do so, he may appeal to the court, whether by request to give instructions to the executor of the estate, or by a request to remove her from office, or in direct proceedings for the division of the estate among the heirs. In other words, the receiver was not appointed by the appellant as the executor of the estate, but rather he was appointed over her as the heir and as a judge of her duty:2 he must exercise the appellant's rights as an heir and fulfill her duties in accordance with the judgment given against her; and if for the purpose of realizing her rights as an heir, he will have a deal with her as the executor of the estate, then he will treat her as he would with any foreign estate administrator: and he will do his job lawfully - let alone - if he does not do his job - he will force the law on him through the court."
- Another important aspect is this: Will the appointment of the receiver indeed lead to such results that the receiver will accumulate sufficient property and funds to repay the debt that was determined in the judgment to the entitled person?
In the aforementioned case, the appellant raised an argument that it is precisely the appointment of the receiver that will harm the chance of realizing the property, and therefore, he should not be appointed. To this, Justice Cohen answers, as follows (The Cohen-Reich case, ibid., paragraph 7, p. 95, between the letters A-C):