Defendant 1 based his argument in this matter on the grounds that the apartment for consideration he would receive would be smaller than the consideration apartment of Twito, even though the Twito apartment was smaller (73 square meters plus 24 square meters of linkage) than his own apartment (105 square meters) (par. of June 20, 2024, at p. 126, paras. 8-26, pp. 127-130). This is a false claim, the Twito apartment is 110 square meters without the addition of the area, so it is larger than the apartment of defendant 1.
The result, therefore, is that even according to the defendants themselves, the consideration for the Twito family is not surplus consideration.
In summary, given that the Twito family will receive an addition of 10% of the area of the apartment, which also includes the addition of the attached area, I did not find that the Twito family's consideration apartment has excess consideration.
As for the other additions that the Twito family receives, I am not convinced that these are significant benefits (or benefits at all) that justify refusing the Pinui-Binui deal. As for the payment for supplementary land that is claimed to be an excess consideration for the Twito family, this is not a benefit to the Twito family at all, but rather a payment that the developer must pay to the Development Authority. The apartment owners are not supposed to bear it at all. Defendant 1's interrogation shows that he does not know or understand what supplementary land is, and he mistakenly believed that it was a building addition for the Twito family (pp. 136, 1-26, 137, 1-14). As for the developer's participation in the maintenance of the building, this is a benefit for all apartment owners in the complex and not only for the Twito family. As for the amount of rent, since this is an uncharacteristic apartment, it was agreed by law that the rent you will receive will be NIS 1,500 higher than the rent for the other apartment owners. There is justification for this, since the Twito family's apartment is different from the other apartments in the buildings. As for the upgrades in the kitchen, it has not been proven that these are upgrades of a significant value that justify refusing to enter into an agreement.
- The Itzkowitz Apartment - This is an apartment that has been used for a dental clinic for years without a permit. The consideration that the Itzkowitz family is supposed to receive according to the addendum to the agreement is a commercial unit; The Itzkowitz family will be evacuated wherever it wishes, and for this reason it will be paid rent in the amounts set out in the agreement; The Itzkovitz family will receive an adjustment of the consideration unit to serve as a dental clinic, which will include, among other things, division into rooms using plasterwall, a kitchenette, a reception station, adapted flooring, adapted electricity, etc.; the transportation of the contents of the existing apartment to the apartment to be rented, and from there back to the consideration unit; Payment of an interior designer's salary for a meeting of no more than three hours. I did not find that this consideration justifies a refusal of the project.
First, in accordance with the addendum to Itzkowitz's agreement, the Itzkowitz family waives its right to receive parking, which has a significant value.