Civil Case (Center) 63837-03-22 Aharon Itzkowitz v. Tal Mordechai Naveh - part 5

Mr. Hazan testified that no developer wanted to carry out the project.  It was the apartment owners who convinced Mr. Keinan to serve as the project's developer.  The owners of the existing apartments suffer from leaks from the ceiling, the buildings are unfit for habitation and their condition is serious.

Also during the hearing, defendant 2 testified that she was considering moving to an assisted living facility and renting out her new apartment.

At the time of the hearing, the developer and defendant 2 agreed that defendant 2 would advertise her apartment for sale through a broker and that if the apartment was sold, the developer would bear the broker's fees.  This agreement was given the force of a decision.

61. On October 29, 2023, defendant 2 submitted an update notice and a request for instructions, in which she announced that as part of the conversations she held for the purpose of advertising her apartment, she was required to provide details about the consideration apartment, and requested that the consideration apartment be with three air directions. It also requested a sketch of the proposed apartment and the building plan, which includes the total number of apartments in the building and the mix of apartments.
62. On November 29, 2023, the plaintiffs submitted a response to the notice in which they objected to defendant 2's request, claiming that it intended to accept the plaintiffs' offer for a compromise to receive a three-way apartment, which was no longer relevant.
63. On December 7, 2023, defendant 2 submitted a response to the plaintiffs' response, in which it rejected the claims.

The defendants' request to appoint a real estate appraiser as an expert on behalf of the court to examine the considerations granted to all the tenants and the economic feasibility of the project

64. On January 16, 2024 (four months before the date of the evidentiary hearings), the defendants filed a joint motion to appoint a real estate appraiser as an expert on behalf of the court to examine the considerations granted to all the tenants and the economic feasibility of the project.
65. On January 25, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a response to the motion in which they objected to the defendants' request.
66. On February 11, 2024, the defendants filed a response to the response in which they rejected the plaintiffs' claims.
67. On April 4, 2024, the court issued a decision denying the request to appoint an expert, inter alia, because the request was submitted with a delay close to the date of the evidentiary hearing and no justification was presented for the delay in submitting the application.

Affidavits of the main witness, opinions and evidentiary hearings

68. On behalf of the plaintiffs, affidavits of the main witness of Mr. Keinan and Mr. Twito were submitted.
69. On behalf of the defendants, affidavits of the main witness of defendant 1 and defendant 2 were submitted. In addition, an expert opinion was submitted by the appraiser, Ms. Pnina Even-Chen, dated February 28, 2024, with the purpose of examining the value of the defendants' apartments in relation to the plaintiffs' apartments in the project (hereinafter: "the defendants' opinion" and the "defendants' appraiser", respectively).
70. On May 2, 2024, the plaintiffs submitted an appraisal opinion prepared by Paz Economics, which relates to the defendants' opinion (hereinafter: the "supplementary opinion").
71. At the request of the defendants, the witnesses were summoned: Mr. Aharon Itzkowitz; a representative from the foyer; Adv. Guy Farbman and a representative of Paz Economics.
72. On May 5, 2024, an evidentiary hearing was held at which Mr. Twito was interrogated; Mr. Keinan; Mr. Itzkowitz and Mr. Zion Keinan.
73. On May 19, 2024, an evidentiary hearing was held, in which a representative of Paz Economics who prepared the supplementary opinion, Mr. Amit Tutian (hereinafter: "Paz Economics"), was questioned; Mrs. Aliza Tarone on behalf of the foyer; The appraiser of the defendants and defendant 2.
74. On June 20, 2024, an evidentiary hearing was held in which defendant 1 was interrogated.

Summaries and Submission of Inheritance Orders and Probate

75. On February 23, 2025, an oral summary hearing was held, in which the parties reiterated their arguments.
76. On March 31, 2025, and in accordance with the court's decision of March 26, 2025, the plaintiffs filed inheritance and probate orders of the plaintiffs who have passed away since the beginning of the proceeding: In relation to Ms. Hush, a probate order was attached, which showed that her only heir with respect to the apartment was her daughter Rachel Marcus; In relation to the late Mr. Meir Elbaz, plaintiff No. 20, an inheritance order was attached, according to which his only heir was his spouse Sudi Elbaz; In relation to the late Mr. Yehuda Galanti, plaintiff No. 24, an inheritance order was attached, according to which his only heirs were his spouse Malka Sultana Galanti (13/14) and his minor daughter Shirel Galanti (1/4). Rachel Marcus signed a power of attorney to file the lawsuit.  The spouses of the late Mr. Meir Elbaz and the late Yehuda Galanti signed a power of attorney to file the lawsuit and the evacuation-construction agreement.

The Questions in Dispute

77. In order to accept the claim and order the enforcement of the agreement and the Pinui-Binui transaction on the defendants under section 2(a)(2) of the Pinui-Binui Law, two questions must be examined and answered: (1) Is there a privileged majority among the apartment owners in the Pinui-Binui cluster to enter into a Pinui-Binui transaction, in accordance with section 1 of the Pinui-Binui Law? If the answer is yes – (2) Do the defendants unreasonably refuse to transfer their rights for the purpose of executing the transaction or condition their consent to this on unreasonable conditions,  In accordance with Section 2(a) of the Pinui-Binui Law? If the answer to both questions is yes, the claim will be accepted.
78. I will examine these two questions below. In examining the second question regarding the reasonableness of the refusal, I will examine the reasons for the refusal as presented by the defendants.

Discussion and DecisionNormative Framework - Pinui-Binui Law

79. Section 2(a)(2) of the Evacuation and Construction Law provides as follows:

"2(a) If a privileged majority of the apartment owners in the Pinui & Binui cluster agrees to enter into an evacuation & construction transaction, and the court finds that an apartment owner in that cluster unreasonably refuses to transfer his rights for the purpose of executing the transaction or conditions his consent to do so on unreasonable conditions (in this law – an apartment owner refuses), the court may act in one of the following: