What follows from the aforesaid so far is: that the Neve Simcha Company, the profits from the Neve Simcha activity, and all the other assets received in exchange for the sale of Yeshivat Etz Haim (which is an asset of the Association, which was purchased from the Wolf Endowment Funds) belong to the Association" (paragraphs 89-90 of the judgment).
- This determination of the trial court is anchored in the evidence, first and foremost In the first version given by the appellants in the interrogations conducted by the Special Director before he submitted to the court the request for instructions. In these investigations, the appellants confirmed that the payments made to them by Neve Simcha were made for their role as members of the association's committee. Thus, one of the members of the committee, Zvi Aryeh Tukchinsky (hereinafter: צבי), who worked for the association as a spiritual supervisor, noted that he was indifferent to the question of where he would receive his salary from – whether from Neve Simcha or from the association, even though he did not work at all in Neve Simcha, which paid him his salary (Zvi was also obligated to return the salary amounts received by him and he is the appellant Other Municipality Requests 39160-02-25 [Nevo]. The appeal was dismissed after Zvi reached a compromise with the special manager on the court's recommendation).
- In any event, and as the trial court noted in its judgment, even assuming that Neve Simcha should not be viewed as an asset of the association, the result would not have been different. This is because it is an oasis of joy It is a direct asset owned by the endowment, and Yosef and Adv. Shachor were trustees of the endowment, and as such, they were not entitled to receive remuneration. Section 8(A) Law Loyalty states that "a trustee is not entitled to remuneration for the performance of his duties, unless fulfillment was one of his occupations; However, the court may allocate him a salary, if it deems that this is required by the scope of his duties as a trustee." Section 13(A) Law Loyalty Expands and prohibits a trustee from deriving "for himself or his relative any other benefit from the trust's assets or actions" and section 15 states that "a profit that a trustee unlawfully generated as a result of the trust is considered part of the trust's assets." However, In accordance with the instructions of the Registrar of Endowments, a trustee of a public endowment may receive a salary up to the ceiling of 5% of the proceeds of the endowment each year, and the trial court did indeed take this ceiling into account, when it ordered the return of the sums withdrawn.
- As stated, the appellants' first version in their interrogation by the special manager was that the payments paid to them by Neve Simcha were made for their role as members of the association's board. Attorney Shachor confirmed in his interrogation with the Special Manager that the payments he received from Neve Simcha were "compensation" for his activity without receiving a salary within the framework of the association, and Haim also confirmed in his interrogation before the special manager that for his work at the association he received a salary first from the association and then from Neve Simcha.
Only at the trial stage did the appellants change their reasons and claim that The salary was paid to them for a significant amount of work they performed in the framework of their role as directors of Neve Simcha. The trial court rejected the The argument that the appellants received remuneration for their work in Neve Simcha. The appeal on this point is directed mainly to the findings of fact and reliability determined by the trial court, which is not the way for the appellate court to intervene in this.