Civil Case (Nazareth) 10551-02-23 Michal Egler vs. Renana Peretz

Judgment

Before a claim for declaratory relief and enforcement of an agreement for the sale of a real estate property that is claimed to have been entered into between the parties and supplementary and alternative remedies.

Background:

1. The focus of the lawsuit is a document dealing with the sale of an apartment at 2 Alon Street in Rosh Pina in a two-family building (hereinafter - the property). The rights in the property belong to defendant 1 (hereinafter - the defendant).  Defendant 2 is the father of the defendant who acted as an extension in the engagement (hereinafter - the defendant).  The plaintiffs are spouses.
2. The document is dated August 23, 2021, but there is no dispute between the parties that it was signed at the end of October 2021. The title of the document is "Option to Purchase an Property", and in the body of the document it is stated as follows:

Whereas: A lease agreement was signed between the parties for a residential apartment with 5 rooms and its contents as detailed in this agreement at 1/1 Alon Street in Rosh Pin (hereinafter: the "Property" or "the Leased").

And the tenant expressed his desire to purchase the licensed property.

         Therefore, it was agreed, stipulated and declared between the parties as follows:

1. The property will be sold during the lease period and/or at the end of the lease period to the tenant in the amount of ILS 2,6660,000 net.
2. From this screen, the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord will be deducted.
3. As soon as this is possible, the parties will meet and advance a sale agreement for signing.
4. The parties are aware that this agreement is between the parties only and should not be shown and/or presented to anyone.
5. The parties calculated the transaction and reached the conclusion that they accepted its terms.
6. When drafting a sales contract, each party will bear the payments and debts that apply to it as a regular buyer and purchaser.
7. No one in favor will have a claim regarding the quality of the property, even at the time of delivery of possession of the sale.
8. For proof, we have come to the signatory today, August 23, 2021

The Landlord                                                                                 The Tenant

3. As stated in the document, the parties additionally signed a lease agreement of the property, dated October 30, 2021, according to which the plaintiffs rented the property from the defendant for the period from November 1, 2021 to October 30, 2022. It will be hereinafter referred to as the lease agreement.  The lease agreement stipulates that the rent is ILS 5,000 per month.
4. Possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiffs close to the date of the signing of the aforementioned agreements. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs paid the defendant the sum of ILS 90,000, an amount that the parties disagree as to its exact nature.  The plaintiffs live in the property to this day.
5. On November 3, 2022, shortly after the end of the lease period as defined in the lease agreement, the parties met with Adv. Yair Ohana (hereinafter - Ohana) for the purpose of signing a sale agreement. During the meeting, the plaintiffs learned that only parts of Plot 259 on which the property is built are registered in the Land Registry 7/24, while the rest of her rights are registered in another adjacent plot (Plot 261).  According to the evidence, the background to this is the failure to register a partnership agreement that existed between the partners in a parcel of origin that underwent parcellation, in such a way that the registration in the Land Registry did not give expression to the sharing agreement.
6. As will be detailed below, following that meeting, the parties held talks between them and submitted draft agreements, but a sale agreement was not signed. In the background, inter alia, the difficulty created for the plaintiffs to obtain a mortgage on the property in view of its registered status, the defendant's demands regarding the date of payment of the consideration, and the defendant's refusal to make any change in the draft sale agreement prepared by her counsel.
7. On November 30, 2022, the defendants informed the plaintiffs that the negotiations between the parties had ended, and demanded that they vacate the property.
8. On January 2, 2023, the defendant filed a claim for eviction of a tenant with the Magistrate's Court in Nazareth (TA. 7334-01-23(.  On February 6, 2023, the plaintiffs filed the claim before me, for a declaration of the existence of a binding agreement between the parties for the sale of the property and its enforcement.
9. As part of the eviction claim in the Magistrate's Court, the parties reached an agreement whereby until a judgment is received in the plaintiffs' lawsuit, the plaintiffs will pay the defendant rent in the amount of ILS 6,000 as of May 1, 2023. If the claim is accepted, the amounts paid up to the date of the judgment will be deducted from the amount of the contractual consideration.  It was also agreed that if the defendants' claim in the District Court is rejected, the plaintiffs undertake to vacate the apartment within 60 days from the date of the judgment.  This agreement is given the force of a judgment in the Magistrate's Court.

Summary of the parties' arguments: