Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 56204-12-21 Erez Golani v. Yona Kehati

Plaintiffs’ counsel:       Adv. Hannah Zilber

Counsel for the defendant:     Adv. Amos Tain, Adv. Galit Yeshui

Part One - Introduction; the remedies claimed; the question that must be decided; The Outcome of the Judgment

1. Introduction
   • The Matter of the Judgment

• The matter of the judgment is a claim for declaratory relief and the appointment of a receiver on the grounds of a breach of an agreement entered into between the parties. An agreement that received the force of a judgment in another proceeding - in the framework of civil case 49046-03-20 that was conducted before Judge Carmela Haft.  The prosecution seeks, in practice, to pour content into a judgment given in the other proceeding and to set instructions for its execution.
• I will not deny that at first I believed that the lawsuit should be dismissed out of hand, inter alia, because there is no place for a magistrate's court to intervene in a judgment in another proceeding that was also given by the Magistrate's Court and by another bench. Thus, already on May 31, 2022, a judgment was issued deleting the claim.  The dismissal of the claim was due to various reasons, inter alia, due to the fact that there is no reason to ask the court to conduct a proceeding that will clarify a judgment given in another proceeding, and in fact there is no room to pour into the proceeding here, new content for a judgment that has already been given.
• In any case, an appeal was filed against the judgment that deleted the claim. The District Court ruled that the judgment should be revoked and returned to the hearing before - along with instructions that guide the manner in which the judgment given in the other proceeding should be exercised.  This will be discussed in section 3 below.  In summary, it should be said that the District Court ordered an examination of "whether the agreement that received the force of a judgment was indeed violated, with reference to, inter alia, the duty to maintain agreements in good faith." Hence the judgment that has now been given.
  • The controversy over the walnut shell and the reference to the 34 square meters at its center
• In summary, it should be said that the plaintiffs , together with the defendants, are rights holders in a plot of 729 square meters in the city of Tel Aviv. Plaintiff 1 is the son of Mrs. Gerstel Golani Bruria, who held half of the area in the past, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the ones who purchased part of the lot from Ms. Gerstel Golani Bruria.
• For decades, the field stood divided in two. Throughout the years, plaintiff 1 and his family believed that they owned half of the lot.  At a certain point, plaintiff 1, together with his mother and his wife, discovered that the plot was not divided equally and that they had been deprived of, and in fact had been stolen, an area that they estimated amounted to 47 square meters.
• Plaintiff 1, his wife and mother filed a lawsuit in the framework of a civil case 49046-03-20. In this lawsuit, it was claimed that the plot was not actually divided equally and that an area of 47 square meters was deducted from its   For this reason, the plaintiffs petitioned in Civil Case 49046-03-20 to receive proper use fees, for a period of seven years, for the area of 47 square meters; in addition, the plaintiffs petitioned "to instruct the defendants to vacate the area illegally held by them in order to enable the plaintiffs to move the separation fence between the two houses to the line of the measurement area in accordance with the current measurement that was made..." (Paragraph 17(b) of the statement of claim in the framework of civil case 49046-03-20, the emphases are not in the original).
• The proceeding in civil case 49046-03-20 was conducted before Deputy Judge Carmela Haft and ended in a settlement in a hearing held on December 29, 2020. The settlement agreement was given the force of a court ruling.

In accordance with the judgment that adopted the agreements between the parties, two were determined:

• First, with regard to the building rights, it was determined that the building rights in the lot would be divided equally between the parties - half of the building rights for each party;
• Second, as to the area to be returned to the plaintiffs , it was determined that the defendant and her spouse, who has since passed away, would return to the plaintiff an area of 34 square meters. The location of the area will be at the discretion of the defendant and her deceased spouse.

In the words of the judgment in Civil Case 49046-03-20 (emphases not in the original):