Signature confirmation before an attorney [...] (Applicant's signature)
Added: 11.8.96
- Over the years, despite the existence of the aforesaid agreements between the father, the applicant and the respondent, the father objected to the applicant's claims regarding his rights in the farm; and therefore, the applicant conducted a long-term legal proceeding against the father in the framework of Family Case (Family Rishon LeZion) 11040/07 v. S. [Nevo] (September 1, 2013) (hereinafter: the proceeding between the father and the applicant and, respectively, the judgment of the Rishon LeZion Family Court), at the end of which it was determined that the Applicant is the "continuing son" in relation to the farm by virtue of the agreements signed between the parties. In the framework of this proceeding, the parties detailed at length about the intra-family relationship, including the parents' request to appoint the respondent as a "continuing daughter" in the framework of the agreements formulated in their divorce proceeding; the agreements signed between the Respondent and her father; on the transfer of the right in the farm from the Respondent to the Applicant, and on the agreements signed as a result between the father and the Applicant, and between the father and the Respondent; the approval of the cooperative society for the appointment of the applicant as a "continuing son"; And more.
There is no dispute that the applicant did not transfer the farm to his daughter and nephew (the respondent here) and even acted to sell it to third parties without obtaining the consent of the respondent or the respondent (her son). Therefore, and in view of the alleged breach of the letter of undertaking, the respondents filed an action against the applicant for monetary compensation in the sum of ILS 2,500,000.
The Family Court's Judgment
- The Petah Tikva Family Court ruled that in view of the use of the phrase "one hour before my death" in the framework of the letter of undertaking - and all the more so since this undertaking was defined as an irrevocable undertaking - this is an agreement regarding the inheritance of a person made during his lifetime; Therefore, in accordance with section 8(a) of the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: the Law or the Inheritance Law), this obligation is void. The Family Court further ruled that the respondent's claims regarding the payment of the farm to her father should be rejected due to the lack of presentation of evidence on her behalf in this matter, and in view of the unreliability that arose from her testimony. In its ruling, the court also considered the respondent's argument that in the framework of the proceeding that the applicant conducted in the Rishon LeZion Family Court against his father regarding the rights of the farm, the applicant himself testified that he believed that his sister - the respondent - had paid the debts that had incurred the farm, and this was sufficient to prove her claim that she had paid the farm consideration to her father. The court accepted the applicant's explanation on this matter, who claimed that in the proceeding he conducted before his father, his testimony was based on statements that he believed at the time to be true based on the words of his sister, the respondent, and not on the basis of his personal knowledge. Moreover, the court added that even if it had accepted the Respondent's argument in this matter, the Applicant's testimony would not be sufficient to constitute evidence of payment for the farm by the Respondent, especially when the Applicant gave his testimony on the basis of what he had heard from the Respondent herself. In view of the aforesaid, the court ruled that the respondent did not prove her claim regarding the payment of the farm to her father, and even if she had proved this claim, this does not give any validity to the letter of undertaking, which stands in complete contradiction to the provisions of the Inheritance Law.
- The Respondents' argument that the Applicant breached his undertaking to obtain the consent of his daughter and the Respondent's nephew (hereinafter: the nephews) in accordance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Letter of Undertaking (hereinafter: the undertaking), when he sold the farm, was also examined by the Family Court. In its ruling, the Family Court noted that these sections are open to two interpretations: one is that it is an undertaking of the applicant towards the respondent, and the other is that it is an undertaking between the nephews themselves, which will come into effect only upon the transfer of the applicant's rights in the farm to them. In view of the language of the undertaking, the court preferred the second interpretation, according to which the intention of the parties was that only after the transfer of the farm rights to the nephews, the sale of the share of either of them would be subject to the consent of the other nephew; and ruled that since these rights were not transferred to the nephews, this undertaking has no validity. Moreover, the Family Court further held that even if it were a valid undertaking of the Applicant towards the Respondent, this is not sufficient to grant any of the Respondents relief for the breach of the undertaking, both because it has not been proven that the Respondents are entitled to receive any operative relief for the breach of the undertaking, to the extent that it was valid; and because it was not proven by the respondents that any of them suffered damage as a result of the sale of the farm without the respondent's consent to the sale.
- Moreover, the Family Court noted that even though the alternative offset claims claimed by the Applicant were not addressed - since the Respondents' arguments were rejected on their merits - these arguments explain why the Applicant retracted his willingness to share with the Respondents the proceeds of the sale of the farm, after they refused to take part in the many expenses he had incurred for the farm over the years, including for the conduct of the long-standing legal proceedings against his father.
- The respondents' claims that they are entitled to compensation in accordance with the Enrichment and Non-Legal Enrichment Law, 5739-1979, were also rejected by the Family Court. This is because the applicant received the rights in the farm from his father by virtue of a judgment, so that this is not an asset that the applicant received from him unlawfully; and because the respondents did not grant the applicant the rights in the economy, so that none of them is a "entitler" to whom section 1(a) of the Enrichment Law relates, and not in law. Therefore, the Family Court ruled that the applicant cannot be obligated to return to the respondents the farm he received from his father by virtue of a judgment or its value. In light of all this, the respondents' claim was dismissed.
Against this judgment, the respondents filed an appeal with the District Court.