Section 6.11 of Part B outlines the principles for examining the consideration for apartment owners. This section determines, for example, that the key of consideration for the owners of the typical apartments will be uniform, taking into account the differences between the areas of the apartments (subsection A); that the key to consideration for the owners of the non-typical apartments will be uniform, taking into account the value of the apartments in relation to the typical apartments (subsection B), that the developer will bear all the expenses of the apartment owners (subsection C); and other such provisions. At the same time, in subsection D, it was determined, in general terms, what the consideration would be for apartment owners. Similarly, section 7.11 outlines the principles for examining the consideration for the particular apartment owner, in an assessment conducted in accordance with Part C. The principles in this section are intended to assist in examining whether the particular apartment has characteristics that justify excess consideration. Thus, the appraiser must take into account, among other things, the area of the apartment, the attachments, the location of the apartment, the existence of a significant internal renovation, additional rights attributed to the apartment, and the adaptations of the apartment to the special needs of a person with a disability. The principles outlined in this section do not contain any restriction on the consideration for the apartment owner or any reference to the consideration steps in Part A of the Standard."
- In other words, in accordance with parts B and C of Standard 21.1, in order to examine whether the characteristics of an apartment justify the granting of excess consideration, both its area and the areas attached to it (as in the case of Twito) and its economic characteristics (as in the case of Itzkovitz) must be taken into account.
- Against the background of the above, I will turn to examine the apartments of the Twito family and the Itzkowitz family.
- Twito Apartment - The Twito family has an addition of 24 square meters of area attached to the apartment (see: Appendix 1 to Twito's affidavit, page 3 of the affidavit – confirmation of the status of rights in the property from the Israel Lands Authority and pages 41-44 of the sale agreements regarding the apartment). This is the only apartment in the complex to which an area is attached, and its area is the largest in the complex. Therefore, according to the law, the consideration apartment of the Twito family (an addition of 10% of the area of the existing apartment) is larger than the consideration apartments of the defendants. It is clear that the difference in space in the existing apartments has a direct impact on the differences in the areas in the consideration apartments. As long as the owner of an apartment in the building has a larger apartment in the first place, the consideration apartment he will receive will be larger (see and compare: Miscellaneous Appeal - Civil (Tel Aviv District) 19339-01-23 Helen Eisen v. Tecker Leon Bernard (Nevo, May 15, 2023), at para. 25). Consideration in this manner constitutes equal consideration, and deviation from it constitutes unequal consideration.
Defendant 2 also agreed with this logic. Defendant 2 confirmed in her interrogation that if she had been assigned an area "in a standard manner", she would have been entitled to a greater consideration (pp. 422, 9-26, p. 423, 5). Defendant No. 2 confirmed that in the building in which her apartment and the Twito apartment are located, the arrangement of the rights is done by the Israel Lands Authority ("the Administration") (pp. 425, paras. 1-16). The defendant confirmed that in general, the attachment of an area is standard if it is registered with the Administration (p. 423, paras. 22-24). However, when she was presented with the ILA's approval for the addition of the attached area of Twito in her interrogation, defendant 2 evaded providing a response (pp. 426, paras. 1-26, pp. 427, paras. 1-25).