The main arguments of the defendants regarding the amended statement of claim
- The defendants filed separate statements of defense to the amended statement of claim, in which they added new arguments to the original statements of defense.
- Defendant 1 claimed, inter alia, that the agreement was signed in the absence of discretion on the part of the apartment owners; The plaintiffs do not constitute a privileged majority of the apartment owners since Amidar did not sign the agreement; The statement of claim was filed without lawful authorization, since there is no signature by Amidar on the agreement and no power of attorney or inheritance order of deceased plaintiffs was attached; The developer's personal agreements with some of the apartment owners were revealed, and it turned out that there are tenants with surplus considerations - one tenant received a 6-room apartment of 134 square meters and a balcony of 20 square meters, and a second tenant received an apartment of 128 square meters, upgrades, and a commitment to pay rent of NIS 5,500, while the rest of the tenants will receive a 4-room apartment of 100 square meters and NIS 4,000 in rent.
- Defendant 2 claimed, inter alia, that no reports were submitted to the tax authorities in respect of the agreement; This is an organizing agreement whose purpose is to collect a brokerage fee for organizing the tenants and initiating plans; Secret agreements were signed with some of the plaintiffs with unequal considerations; There is no privileged majority of the apartment owners on the agreement; The terms of the agreement are unreasonably poor; The transaction violates its property rights.
The pre-trial hearing of September 28, 2023 and the subsequent negotiations for the settlement between defendant 2 and the plaintiffs and the developer
- On September 28, 2023, a pre-trial was held during which Mr. Keinan, Mr. Risher Twito (hereinafter: " Twito") and Mr. Ilan Hazan of the Tenants' Representative (hereinafter: "Mr. Hazan") were interrogated, in accordance with the court's authority under Regulation 63(b)(14) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018.
- Keinan testified that a company called Pro Engineering was hired as a supervisor on behalf of the plaintiffs, which examined the considerations prior to submitting the application for a building permit; due to defendant 2's demand for a three-way apartment, an apartment was planned accordingly in the third building to be built in the second stage. It was suggested to her that until she received the apartment, she would live in another apartment owned by the developer without paying rent. However, in the end, the developer announced that the proposal was no longer relevant due to its high cost.
Mr. Twito testified, inter alia, that his existing apartment is 110 square meters in size in addition to the additional area (the warehouse was purchased from the Israel Lands Authority as a covered parking lot, and he added two walls without a permit in light construction). He also testified that the apartment in return he would receive would be 10% larger than the existing apartment and with additional upgrades in the kitchen due to the addition of the storage room.