Caselaw

Family file (Haifa) 58512-10-24 S. v. H. - part 3

May 6, 2026
Print

In our case, the argument regarding an apparent agreement was raised only in the framework of the summaries, when the defendant confirmed in the statement of defense and in the affidavit of the main witness on his behalf that the parties had signed affidavits of undertaking to transfer the land to the plaintiff without consideration, and that according to him, he was entitled to withdraw from this undertaking in accordance with the provisions of the Gift Law (see paragraphs 6-14, 20, 24-25, 29, 35, 40 etc.  of the statement of defense, paragraphs 2-7, 9, 17 and more to appeal the decision of the defendant's registrar).

This argument, as to the fact that the agreement was an agreement on the face of it, was made in a casual manner and in any case was not proven in any way.  Thus, for example, the background and circumstances of the signing of the apparent agreement were not specified, and the defendant's claim of making payments in respect of the transaction was not proven in any way.  Specifically, the fact that the plaintiff testified that the gift was given to her against the background of previous assistance to the family members, does not turn the transfer of the land into a transaction in return, and this was even reported to the authorities as a gift transaction.  In practice, a specific transfer of funds in respect of the transaction was not proven, and the defendant's counsel even confirmed during the hearing that the transaction itself was not in dispute (at pp.  50, paras.  15-26).

The sum of ILS 120,000, which was noted as consideration for the real estate, is an estimated sum that was made according to the best judgment, while the tax authorities also recognized the transaction as a gift transaction between relatives.

In light of the aforesaid, it can only be concluded that the defendant's claim regarding an apparent agreement is a suppressed claim that is of little weight to begin with, which was made in connection with the expansion of the façade, and which in any case was not proven in any way.  Therefore, there is no choice but to postpone it.

Previous part123
4...13Next part