Civil Case 40447-12-22 Gil Zeitan v. Florida Israel Luxury Towers Ltd.

Judgment

1. Prior to a monetary claim in the amount of ILS 230,000, which included additional relief (writ of habeas corpus), all in connection with allegations of deception, fraud and misrepresentations in a transaction for the purchase of plots for investment in Florida, USA. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff purchased two lots in Port Charlotte in November 2021 at a cost of ₪22,900 each (antitrust approximately ILS 140,000).  According to the plaintiff, the defendants made false representations on television and on the Internet about a "once-in-a-generation opportunity", promised returns of 100%-150% within a year, and claimed that the lots were sold at a discount of 75% of the market price.  Despite these representations, the plaintiff claimed that he had found out that the lots had been sold at twice their real value.  The defendants had purchased them a short time earlier for only $12,000 and $14,700.  He further claimed that contrary to the representation that the lots were approved and ready for construction with infrastructure, it turned out that they were full of vegetation and trees without ready infrastructure.  The plaintiff further claimed that defendant 2 (hereinafter: the defendant or Bar Oz) had verbally promised to purchase the plots back from the plaintiff after a year, but at the relevant time he refused to do so, and that the defendants hid from the plaintiff the possibility of checking the transaction history on the Zillow website, where the real purchase prices can be seen.
2. The plaintiff petitioned to oblige the defendants to purchase back the plots from him at the price he paid, as well as to compensate him in the sum of an additional ILS 90,000 for expenses, the decrease in the value of the money and mental anguish.
3. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that this was a baseless claim that was filed in bad faith, and that the plaintiff purchased the plots after a comprehensive examination and with full knowledge of the terms of the investment. As a preliminary argument, they argued that the personal claim against the defendant should be dismissed out of hand, on the grounds that he acted as an organ of the company and that the principle of separate legal personality should be respected.  It was argued that the plaintiff did not present grounds for lifting the veil.  It was further argued that defendant 1 (hereinafter: the defendant) served only as a marketing entity, and that the purchase agreement was signed with a separate American company ("Florida Israel Properties Ltd.") that owns the land.
4. The defendants vehemently deny that they promised a "guaranteed return". According to them, an estimated forecast and profit potential based on past data and statistics were presented, and not a commitment to the outcome.  They claim that it was made clear to the plaintiff that this investment was intended for a period of at least 3 years, and that the claim was filed before even half of the recommended period had passed.
5. It is further argued that the plaintiff signed an agreement that includes a clause clarifying that the parties have no obligations or representations beyond what is expressly stated in the agreement itself. The defendants emphasize that prior to the purchase, the plaintiff's two brothers - one of whom (Avi Zeitan) is presented in the statement of defense as a marketing expert - came to their offices, checked the details and authorized the plaintiff to move forward with the transaction.  The plaintiff's mother was also involved in the process.
6. According to the defendants, they offered the plaintiff (beyond the letter of the law) to assist him in selling the lots in the American market in order to return his money, but he and his counsel refused to do so. The defendants add that the prices of the lots in the area are higher than the price paid by the plaintiff, and attach screenshots from the Zillow website as proof of the value of the real market.  In addition, it is claimed that due to the increase in the dollar exchange rate from the date of purchase (ILS 3.09) until the filing of the defense (ILS 3.71), the plaintiff has already earned more than 20% on his investment only from the currency differences.
7. The plaintiff submitted a reply in which he referred to the claims regarding the market value, and pointed out contradictions in his position and the defendants' claims. He also rejected the claim that he had been offered assistance in the sale of the lots.
8. When the parties were unable to reach agreements, affidavits of the main witness were submitted, and an evidentiary hearing was held, after which summaries were submitted.
9. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 On behalf of the plaintiff, affidavits were submitted by the plaintiff himself, his brother, Avi Zeitan. The plaintiff, in his affidavit, repeats the claims of fraud and details the sequence of events from his point of view.  He declares that he purchased the plots on the basis of publications that promised a return of 200-300% within a few years and the defendant's statements on television about a profit of 100-150% within a year or a year and a half.  He testifies that the defendant explicitly told him at the time of the purchase: "Buy the lots, keep them for a year and sell them to me...  I always buy lots." According to his testimony, a year later, he discovered through the Zillow website (whose existence was concealed from him) that the plots had been sold to him at twice the purchase price of the defendants two months earlier.  He notes that the plots are a "forest area" without ready infrastructure, contrary to the original presentation.
10. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)The plaintiff added in the affidavit a claim that did not appear in detail in the statement of claim - according to which a person named Eyal Ankori (who he claimed defrauded investors in the past) was present at the sale meeting, even though the defendants denied it in a supplementary affidavit.
11. Avi's affidavit is intended to support his brother's version and contradict the defendants' claim that he served as a "professional consultant." Avi declares that he has no understanding of real estate and that he is not involved in the field. He emphasizes that he did not advise Gil to buy, but simply believed the defendants' representations that the transaction was worthwhile.  Avi testifies that he was the one who contacted the defendant a year later with a request that he buy the plots back.  According to him, Keinan initially replied in the affirmative (via WhatsApp), but at the meeting itself he refused to make the purchase.  Avi reinforces the claim that Gil acted based on the reports and believed the promises of a large return.
12. On behalf of the defendants, an affidavit of the defendant's main witness was submitted, who declared that he was a co-owner and general manager of the defendant (which, as stated, does not own land, but is only a marketing company). The defendant claims that Eyal Ankori has no connection to the transaction or to the company; he is the ex-wife of his partner (Liat), and comes to the offices only to help her due to her disability.  According to the defendant, the initial contact was made through the plaintiff's brother, Avi Zeitan, who presented himself as an expert in marketing and strategy.  My father was very dominant, asked professional questions and bargained for the price.  It was claimed that the plaintiff came to sign only after his two brothers had already met with Keinan and examined the transaction for him.  The plaintiff's mother was also present at the signing ceremony, and together they examined the plots on satellite and chose them themselves.  The defendant denies the claim that he "pulled out" an agreement; he claims that the agreement was prepared in advance at the plaintiff's request, read by him and his mother, and signed of his own free will.
13. The defendant reiterated his denial that a guaranteed return was promised. He claims that he presented an "estimated profit potential" based on past data, and emphasized that this is an investment for a period of at least 3 years.  He refers to clause 6.2 of the agreement, which states that the parties have no obligations or representations beyond what is expressly written in the contract (in which there is no promise of return).  The defendant declares that he never promised the plaintiff (or any other customer) that he would buy the lot back from him.  The defendant added that the price paid by the plaintiff is not exorbitant and that it embodies the costs of purchase, brokerage, inspections, insurance, and taxes.  He claims that the prices of plots in the area are even higher than the price paid by the plaintiff.  According to his version, contrary to the plaintiff's claims, there is all the infrastructure required for immediate construction.  The presence of trees on the lot does not contradict the fact that it is approved for construction, and construction contractors even give a financial credit for cutting them down.
14. As to the conduct after the purchase, the defendant testified that about a year after the purchase, he met again with the plaintiff and his mother. According to him, after he again explained to them the investment term (3 years), the plaintiff himself decided not to sell the plots at that stage in order to wait for an increase in value.  It was claimed that the defendants offered to assist the plaintiff in selling the plots on the free market beyond the letter of the law, but the plaintiff and his counsel refused to do so and insisted on receiving excessive compensation.
15. Quoted from NevoAt the evidentiary hearing, three testified - the plaintiff, his brother (my father) and the defendant.
16. Avi testified first. In his testimony and interrogation, he confirmed that he was the liaison between his brother Gil (the plaintiff) and the defendant.  He was the one who made the initial contact after receiving Keinan's phone number from a mutual friend in the real estate field.  Avi testified that he and another brother (Nir) met with the defendant before the plaintiff met him.  The purpose of the meeting was to "prepare the ground" for Gil, because he said Gil suffers from "social phobia" and feels pressure from meeting people he doesn't know.  Although the defendants presented him as an expert who examined the transaction, Avi emphasized that despite his 30 years of experience in marketing, he has no understanding of real estate.  He stated that he did not consult Gil professionally, but only got the impression that Keinan "looks good" and that the deal seems worthwhile on the face of it, based on the representations.
17. Avi testified that Keinan presented them with a very high return at the meeting. He also confirmed that a man named Eyal Ankori was present at the first meeting held with the defendant.  He also testified that a year later, when they realized that the lots did not yield the promised return, he asked Keinan to buy the plots back.  He referred to the correspondence that was presented as evidence, and claimed that it could be understood that Keinan had agreed in principle to discuss a repurchase, which was later concealed at the meeting.
18. In his cross-examination, Avi was confronted with a WhatsApp message he sent to the defendant days after the initial contact, stating that his brother wanted to "come to the close." Avi explained this by saying that Gil had already decided to move forward based on the information on the websites and on television, and that the meeting was only to physically "close." He testified that he did not remember seeing the agreement itself at the first meeting, but only received general information that he passed on to his brother.
19. The plaintiff testified secondly. According to his testimony, he was exposed to the defendant through television interviews and publications on the Internet.  He emphasized that he was convinced by the promises of a quick profit ("exit") of 100%-150% within a short time, and reiterated that he trusted the defendant completely.  The plaintiff insisted that the defendant had promised him verbally that if he wanted to sell after a year, Keinan would buy the plots back from him.  When asked in the cross-examination why this promise did not appear in the written contract, the plaintiff replied that he did not understand the contracts, that he relied on the defendant's word that there was no need to record it.  When asked why he refused the defendants' offer to try to sell the plot for him on the free market after the dispute broke out, Gil replied that he had completely lost faith in them and did not want them to continue to "play with his money." .
20. The plaintiff denied that he had been told that it was an investment of 3 years or more. According to him, all the representations spoke of much shorter terms.  He admitted during the interrogation that he did not perform independent checks (such as a valuation check) before the purchase.  He explained this by saying that he did not even know about the existence of such tools at the time, and that the defendants presented themselves as experts who handle everything.  He also confirmed that he asked his brother (Avi and Nir) to go to the first meeting because he was a "nervous type", but claimed that they were not "consultants" but only went to get an impression of the office and the people.  Regarding his mother's presence at the signing ceremony, he claimed that she came "for the atmosphere" and not as a real estate consultant.
21. According to his testimony, about a year after the purchase, when he sought to realize the "exit", he discovered that the defendants had bought the plots for about half of the amount they had sold him. He repeated the claim that the lot turned out to be a forest with no organized access road or ready-to-build infrastructure, contrary to what was presented to him on maps and in the office.
22. The plaintiff was questioned about Eyal Ankori's presence at the meeting. He insisted that Ankori was there, introduced himself as part of the team, and even participated in the conversation, which was intended to contradict the defendants' claim that Ankori was not connected to the company.
23. With regard to the defendant's testimony, it should be noted that it was an attempt to distance himself from verbally made promises and to focus on the language of the written contract, while imposing liability on the plaintiff as someone who voluntarily chose to enter into the transaction and did not wait long enough to see profits. The defendant insisted that he never promised a "guaranteed return".  He claimed that the representations he made (whether on television or in meetings) were "potential" or "expectation" based on past data of real estate in Florida, and not a contractual commitment.  He repeatedly emphasized that this was a long-term investment (at least 3 years) and that the plaintiff acted hastily and impatiently when he asked to sell after only one year.  In his cross-examination, he was forced to explain how his statements on television about "quick exits" were consistent with the claim that it was a three-year investment.  He claimed that television talks about specific and successful cases and that each transaction is examined on its merits.  The defendant categorically denied that he had promised the plaintiff to buy the plots from him after a year.  He claimed that his business model was to market land, and not to buy it back from customers.  The defendant claimed that the plaintiff and his family (especially the brother, my father and mother) were very involved, asked questions and examined the maps.  He emphasized that he did not prevent them from conducting any independent examination and that they signed the agreement after reading it and understanding the risks.
24. In the cross-examination, the defendant was asked about the discrepancy between the price at which he purchased the lots (about $12,000) and the price at which he sold them to the plaintiff (about $23,000). He explained that the discrepancy stemmed from high marketing costs, operating expenses of offices in Israel, payment of commissions to salespeople, and professional inspections conducted on the property.  According to his testimony, the price paid by the plaintiff was a fair market price for a lot that was screened and examined by an Israeli company accompanying the purchaser.
25. A significant part of the defendant's cross-examination dealt with the question of Eyal Ankori's share and presence. The defendant testified that Ankori is the ex-husband of his partner Liat, and that he is sometimes in the offices to help her due to her disability, but that he has no official position in the company and was not part of the sale process to the plaintiff.  The defendant was also confronted with messages he sent to Avi Zeitan, which ostensibly implied that he agreed to examine a repurchase.  Keinan claimed that this was an attempt to be service-oriented and courteous to a customer (and his brother) who were under pressure, but that this never constituted a legal obligation to buy the plots at the purchase price.
26. The parties submitted summaries.
27. The plaintiff, in his summaries, tries to prove that the defendants' version collapsed in the cross-examination and that all the elements of the fraud were proven. He pointed to discrepancies, according to his version, that were discovered in real time on the witness stand - in the case of Eyal Ankori: The summaries emphasize that Keinan denied any connection to Ankori in his affidavit, but in the cross-examination he was forced to admit that he was in the offices on a regular basis.  The plaintiff claims in the summaries that this denial has implications for the credibility of the defendant as a whole; on the condition of the lot: it is claimed that the defendant admitted that it was a "forest area" and not a developed plot as advertised.
28. The plaintiff referred to the exhibits to strengthen his claims. He referred to the defendant's words in television interviews and asked to see them as a binding promise and not just as an "expectation", while claiming that the defendant could not repudiate in court what he said in front of the cameras.
29. In addition, it is argued that the increased duty of disclosure applies to someone who presents himself as an "expert" vis-à-vis a private person, and argues that even if he signed a contract, the defendant's moral and legal duty prevails over what is written. The summaries attempt to paint a broader picture of the method.  The plaintiff claims that the defendants are acting in a method of "hunting" innocent investors through the media, and that Gil's case is not a one-time mistake but part of a business model based on deception.  The summaries emphasize the claim that the defendants purchased the plots at half the price two weeks before selling them to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff defines this in the summaries as "oppression" and "extreme bad faith" that cannot be justified as a "marketing fee".
30. The plaintiff further detailed why he believes that the defendant should be held personally (and not only the company), using the fact that he was the main and only spokesperson vis-à-vis the plaintiff.
31. Similar to the plaintiff's summaries, the defendants' summaries were not only a "technical repetition" of the claims in the statement of defense, but an analysis of the evidence as it arose at the evidentiary stage. The defendants use the summaries to highlight the plaintiff's "failure" to prove his claims during the cross-examinations.  The defendants emphasize that the plaintiff chose not to testify with his mother, even though she was present at the critical sales meetings.  According to them, refraining from bringing a relevant witness works to the detriment of the litigant (a presumption that if she had testified, her testimony would have contradicted her son's version).
32. As for the plaintiff's own version, the defendants claim that it collapsed. They emphasize that the plaintiff admitted that he did not do any check, even though they claim that he is an educated person.  They present this as negligence on the part of the plaintiff and not as their fraud.  According to them, in the cross-examination the plaintiff was unable to point to any document or solid proof of the promise of repurchase of the lots, and presented his testimony as the sole testimony of a litigant without assistance.  In order to strengthen their position, the defendants referred to the testimony of the plaintiff's brother, Avi.  It was claimed that the brother was a shrewd man, an experienced marketing man, who was deeply involved in the transaction.  In doing so, they try to neutralize the claim of the "innocent plaintiff" and present the transaction as a transaction between people who understand the matter.
33. It was further claimed that even if the plaintiff was not satisfied, the defendants offered him help in selling the property on the free market, and he refused. They claim that this refusal constitutes a breach of the duty of "minimizing the damage" imposed on each plaintiff.
34. In the summaries, the defendants also reiterated the argument against "lifting the veil". They claim that no personal fraud on the part of the defendant was proven, and that all of his actions were within the framework of his position in the company.  They wish to dismiss the personal claim against him outright, while emphasizing that even if there was a business mistake, it does not constitute a "fraud" that justifies a personal charge.
35. The plaintiff's reply summaries are by nature shorter and more focused, and were submitted in order to respond to the defendants' summaries. The plaintiff referred to the defendants' argument regarding the failure to bring his mother to testify and argued that evidentiary significance should not be attributed to her failure to be brought due to her advanced age, and that his own testimony and that of his brother Avi was sufficient to establish the factual basis.  According to him, if the defendants believed that her testimony was so critical to proving their version, they could have summoned her themselves as a defense witness.
36. In response to the defendants' claim that they offered help and the plaintiff refused, it was argued that the defendant's offer to "help with the sale" was an empty offer that was uttered verbally and externally.
37. As to the defendant's claim of personal liability, the plaintiff added that it was clear from the defendant's testimony that he was the "living spirit" and the sole behind the representations, and that the company was only a legal cover for his personal activity. Therefore, the plaintiff insists in the reply summaries that he should not be allowed to "hide" behind the company's legal personality.
38. The summaries sought to reinforce the point that the plaintiff is an "innocent and inexperienced investor" that this is his first investment, vis-à-vis the defendants who are "skilled professionals" who appear on television. The plaintiff claims in the reply summaries that the defendants are trying to "blame the victim" for not checking, while they are the ones who actively misled him.

Discussion and Decision