It was further claimed by the defendant that the deceased had signed a gift agreement by a foreign lawyer, on behalf of the plaintiff, whom the deceased did not know, and this was a place where the deceased had been accompanied throughout her life by a permanent lawyer – the late Attorney Raanan Ron, whom she relied on with her eyes closed. The special relationship between the two is attested to by the will signed by the deceased, according to which she bequeathed to the grandchildren of Adv. Raanan Ron, part of her estate. Therefore, the defendant claims that the deceased was not fit to sign a gift agreement, and that she lacked the discretion to execute the transaction.
- In the statement of defense, the defendant details in more detail the deceased's medical history prior to signing the gift agreement, and the signs of her incapacity at the time of signing. In addition, it was claimed that there were disputes between the deceased and the late Yaffe, and that the relationship was very complicated and cold. The dispute was against the background of the fact that the late Yaffa was in debt, and asked to sell her apartment to the deceased. After the sale of the apartment of the late Yaffe and the transfer of the rights therein in the name of the deceased, the late Yaffe demanded that the apartment be returned to her, while she did not have the money to pay for that apartment. The defendant further denies that the relationship between the deceased and the late Yaffa was improving as described in the statement of claim, and according to her, this is a verbal claim. The defendant further claims that the plaintiff did not register his rights in the apartment, and therefore, according to the law, this omits his right to register accordingly Section 9 of the Real Estate Law, 5729-1969 (hereinafter: "Real Estate Law").
- It was further claimed that the plaintiff is a serial defendant in the various courts, both on the civil and criminal levels, and that a number of cases were opened against him in the years 2012-2013, concerning the eviction of a tenant from the apartments he rented. This raises the question, why did the defendant not move to live in the apartment that he claimed he received as a gift from the deceased? The plaintiff did not do the owner's custom in the apartment, after the alleged gift agreement was signed, did not move in, and did not pay bills.
In the statement of defense, the defendant denied that the deceased had signed the documents of the gift transaction, and raised the question as to why the plaintiff refrained from attaching an affidavit on behalf of the lawyer, before whom a gift agreement was signed, which would clarify under what circumstances, where, in the presence of whom, and by whom the agreement was signed.
- On November 5, 2024, the parties' testimonies were heard, when Adv. Shai Cohen, the plaintiff himself, and his sister, Ms. Elinor Atar, testified on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant herself and Attorney Ofer Ron testified.
Decision and Discussion:
- After considering the arguments of the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
Before I elaborate on my reasoning, I will first note that contrary to the defendant's claim, the legal position of the issue is not in section 9 of the Real Estate Law, which deals with contradictory transactions. The defendant did not receive rights in the apartment as a result of a real estate transaction, but rather as a result of a will that entitled her to the apartment. Against this background, the obvious question in our case is whether the plaintiff proved that a gift transaction was made, which entitles him to the apartment? This question is supposed to be examined in light of the provisions of section 8 of the Real Estate Law. An additional provision that is required for the purpose of deciding the companies that are the subject of the lawsuit, if it is proven that a gift agreement was entered into between the deceased and the plaintiff, is the provision of section 18 of the Contracts Law (General Part), 5733-1973, which deals with a defect in the conclusion due to oppression.