Defendant 1 testified in his interrogation that the reason for his objection was that the consideration apartment of the Itzkovitz family was a commercial unit whose value was 30% greater than the value of a residential apartment. However, defendant 1 did not know what the special costs that the Itzkovitz family would be required to bear due to the move and whether the costs were equal to the alleged "excess consideration" (par. of June 20, 2024, at pp. 144, paras. 1-24, pp. 145, paras. 16-26, p. 146, paras. 1-21). When asked in his interrogation what he believed was the appropriate compensation for those special damages, he did not know how to answer. His counsel objected to the question, intervened and replied in his place that this was an expert argument (pp. 147, 5-25, pp. 149, 14-18). On the contrary, if this is indeed an issue of expertise, then the defendants did not submit an expert opinion on the matter.
- In this context, it is appropriate to relate to the defendants' opinion that was attached as support for the claim of the lack of equality in consideration. After examining the opinion and being impressed by the defendants' appraiser's interrogation, I found that low weight should be attributed to it. The opinion was written in an unclear manner. The numbers were not supported or explained. No minimal tests were conducted. The appraiser was not familiar with the details. The appraiser was based on incorrect or partial data. Its conclusions were general and had no legal relevance to our case. First, although the purpose of the opinion was to examine the considerations for the apartment owners, the appraiser did not see or examine the Pinui-Binui agreement and did not examine the considerations for the defendants (para. 19.5.24, pp. 379, paras. 23-24). The appraiser also did not know that the tenants were receiving benefits (pp. 400, 5-11); Second, the appraiser said in the interrogation that all she was asked to do in the opinion was to show the difference in value between the apartments, given that each apartment is different in its characteristics (par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 380, paras. 2-15). This is an examination that is irrelevant to the question of equality in consideration, since it is clear that each apartment is different in its characteristics from its neighbor's apartment according to location, floor, view, etc. Precisely for this purpose, the apartment selection mechanism was determined, which points the value of the apartments according to characteristics and determines the order in which the apartments are selection. Third, the opinion noted that the Twito family had a warehouse/parking without a permit. However, the appraiser did not know that the addition of its area was lawfully attached and that it was permitted for any use (par. of May 19, 2024, pp. 390, 22-25), and in her interrogation she admitted that this was a very important figure (p. 391, paras. 1-10). It is difficult to draw a legal conclusion from an opinion that is based on erroneous material data; Fourth, with regard to the Itzkowitz apartment, all that was stated in the opinion was that, in general, a commercial unit has a higher value than a residential unit. The appraiser confirmed in her interrogation that this is a general figure that varies from case to case and which does not relate at all to the present case (p. 404, paras. 6-16). This general fact does not teach anything about the present proceeding or the Itzkowitz apartment. In addition, the appraiser did not know how to answer relevant questions such as: what are the costs involved in moving a medical business (p. 403, 2-8), whether it is possible to obtain a permit for exceptional use (p. 407, 22-26) or what is the policy to approve deviant use (p. 408, paras. 1-5). In these circumstances, I have reached the conclusion that it is not possible to draw a legal conclusion from the opinion regarding the claim of excess consideration to the Itzkowitz family. The defendants' opinion does not substantiate their claim of lack of equality in consideration.
I have not lost sight of other arguments by the plaintiffs in their summaries regarding the implications and credibility of the defendants' opinions. At the same time, due to the conclusion I reached, I did not find it necessary to address these arguments as well.
- Third, the defendants' investigations show that their objection to the project on the grounds of the lack of equality in consideration is not an honest and genuine objection.
Defendant 2 admitted in her interrogation that even if she had received an apartment identical to the Itzkovitz family or the Twito family, she would still not have agreed to sign the agreement, and would still have insisted on her refusal (par. of May 19, 2024, at pp. 450, paras. 20-26, pp. 451, paras. 1-7). To teach us that her opposition is not sincere and genuine.