"The Honorable Judge Barkai: And how did you choose that area and not an area close to the fence?
The witness, Mr. L. Kehati: Since one of our units is supposedly adjacent to them, what we understood from a lawyer who contacted and spoke to my mother, that if they supposedly go indoors, it would be a major damage to the internal property, that is, If they put a fence in front of the inner unit we will have a problem renting, we will have a problem with it, it really causes problemsSo my mother said we will give it to him in the eastern part, the southern part, sorry"
Simply put, to the extent that the defendant returns to the plaintiffs the land it stole, it will damage one of the housing units that it has built and which it is renting. And this reason is what led the defendant to try to keep the theft in its hands and allocate the plaintiffs a detached area of land.
- From all of the above, it emerges that the defendant is well aware of the land that was stolen. The defendant with lip candy hides behind the older son who lives with her, and claims in practice that she herself is willing to return the theft, but as she puts it, "But I have another little child outside Elad, he will see what he will tell me."
- Summary so far, as well as reference to the stolen land
- From the aforesaid, it emerges that the conduct of the defendant, who wishes to preserve the fruits of the theft of the land in her hands, is conduct in bad faith; improper conduct; conduct that is inconsistent with the conduct after the judgment and which does not even match the defendant's own version as well as the version of three of her adult children.
- It also emerges that the judgment in Civil Case 49046-03-20 should be upheld in such a way that the land stolen by the defendant and her late husband, in an area of 34 square meters, should be residing for the plaintiffs - when it borders the plaintiffs' territory.
- The defendant's conduct violates the provisions of the agreement and the judgment in civil case 49046-03-20. In light of the defendant's conduct so far, when it expressed its opinion that it would do everything possible to avoid the return of the stolen land, I determine that in order to be able to see the good faith fulfillment of the judgment only to the extent that out of the area of 34 square meters that will be transferred to the plaintiffs, there will be a boundary line of at least 3.4 meters long, which will be applied to the plaintiffs' share or any of them. Simply put, the common boundary line between the plaintiffs' share or any of them and the area of the lands that the defendant will transfer will be, at a minimum, 3.4 meters long.
- A note before concluding regarding the claim of lack of rivalry raised by the defendant
- The defendant claimed in the statement of defense that there was no rivalry, as she put it. The same lack of rivalry is due to the fact that the judgment was given against Ms. Gerstel Golani Bruria (the mother of plaintiff 1) and Ms. Anat Golani (wife of plaintiff 1) - and the latter did not file a claim here. It was further argued that plaintiff 3 does not border on the defendant's share and therefore there is no rivalry between him and the defendant.
- With all due respect, there is no room for these claims of the defendant. The judgment relates to an examination of its conduct in the execution of the judgment and the agreement it reached in the framework of civil case 49046-03-20. It is sufficient that the proceedings here would have been conducted even with plaintiff 1, who was part of the proceeding in civil case 49046-03-20. To be precise, the prosecution is not petitioning for the payment of compensation money, or any consideration that is supposed to be divided between the plaintiffs - but rather the proceeding relates to the improper conduct sent by the defendant, who wishes to preserve the land that she and her deceased husband stole.
- The determination regarding the transfer of the stolen land is the fruit of the agreement and the judgment in civil case 49046-03-20 - and does not necessarily derive from the judgment here. All that the judgment here refers to is the manner in which the judgment is implemented, and in accordance with the final instructions received from the District Court.
- In the margins, it should be said that even so, there is no basis for the defendant's claim, since the plaintiffs received the rights of Ms. Gerstel Golani Bruria, including by way of purchasing parts of the land (plaintiffs 2 and 3).
Part IV - The remedies and orders in which the defendant must be binding , as well as the outcome of the proceeding and the conclusion
- Individual consideration of each of the required remedies
After all of the above, it remains to relate to the various remedies that were claimed and to determine the remedies and orders to which the defendant will be obligated. In this regard, I will refer below to the six remedies, which are also detailed in section 2 above.
- First of six remedies - declaratory judgment stating that the defendant breached and is in breach of the agreement entered into between the parties, which received the effect of a judgment on December 29, 2020
From the aforesaid, it appears that the defendant is acting in bad faith, violating the agreement in which it undertook on December 29, 2020, and which received the force of a judgment. In order to avoid infringement, the defendant must transfer to the plaintiffs or any of them an area of 34 square meters, and as stated in section 12.3 above , it will be possible to see the existence of the judgment in good faith only to the extent that out of the area of 34 square meters that will be transferred to the plaintiffs, there will be a boundary line of at least 3.4 meters in length, which will be applied to the plaintiffs' share or any of them. Simply put, the common boundary line between the plaintiffs' share or any of them and the area of the land that the defendant will transfer will be, at a minimum, 3.4 meters long. It should also be determined, in light of the defendant's procrastination and conduct, that it must carry out the transfer of the land - so that the actual transfer and the placement of the fence in the correct place will be until November 15, 2025. After this date, the defendant will be considered to have continued to violate the judgment.
- Second Remedy of Six - Declaratory Judgment Determining that the Defendant is acting in bad faith in fulfilling its contractual obligations
The requirement in this remedy actually coincides with what is stated in the first remedy and in section 14.1 above, so that the discussion thereof is superfluous.
- Third of six remedies - a remedy that determines that the right to choose the location of the area that sits for the plaintiffs has been transferred to the plaintiffs. The right was transferred because the defendant refrained from determining the location of the area in which the plaintiffs reside
There is no reason to determine that due to the defendant's conduct, the plaintiffs will receive the right to determine the location of the area that will be transferred to them. This ruling will completely change the judgment in Civil Case 49046-03-20 and it deviates from the final instructions given to me by the District Court. In light of the aforesaid, the demand for this relief is denied.
- Fourth Remedy of Six - Appointment of the plaintiffs' counsel as receiver or appointment of another receiver to execute the judgment and authorize him to act in accordance with the court's instructions in order to carry out all the actions required by the judgment, including the transfer of 34 square meters from the defendant's possession to the possession of plaintiffs 2 and 3
The place of a request to appoint a receiver for the execution of a judgment is in the framework of a proceeding at the Execution Office. To be precise, the way to appoint a professional for the purpose of "doing an act" is set forth in section 63 of the Writ of Execution Law, 5727-1967, whose title is "Doing an Act". In light of the above, the demand for this relief is denied.
- Fifth remedy from six - a determination that the defendant contempted the court's judgment, and enforcement of the judgment in a manner that will prevent the defendant from thwarting the receiver's work or making it difficult to carry it out
- The proceeding here was not opened in essence as a proceeding in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance. No application was filed in the framework of civil case 49046-03-20 - but the plaintiffs chose to file a separate and new lawsuit. For this reason, it is already difficult to determine remedies by virtue of the Contempt of Court Ordinance.
- Moreover, even if an application had been filed under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, it is doubtful that it would have been granted. A proceeding under the Contempt of Court Ordinance is a residual proceeding that, from the outset, is limited to focused proceedings that are not complex, and therefore is incompatible with the extensive proceeding conducted here - including hearing the parties' testimonies. In this regard, see, for example, Civil Appeal 4089/21, Shoval Groupman Real Estate in a Tax Appeal v. Faire Holdings Three Limited (dated July 27, 2023, N. Hayut, Judge A. Baron, Judge R. Ronen), where it was held that "contempt proceedings are required to be narrow and focused - in order to enforce that unequivocal and clear order - and they are not suitable for enforcing obligations that require interpretation or complex factual clarifications." See also Civil Appeal Authority 2389/22 (of July 21, 2022, Judge A. Grosskopf) and Civil Appeal Authority 734/22 A.S.P.I. Company for the Promotion of Environmental Projects (Israel) in a Tax Appeal v. Global Green Drop (But David) in a Tax Appeal (dated May 29, 2022, Judge A. Grosskopf) in which it was held that "the rule is that proceedings by virtue of the Ordinance are required to be short and focused, and according to this line it is not suitable for enforcing charges that require interpretation or that require complex factual clarifications."
- In light of the above, the demand for this relief is denied.
- Sixth of six remedies - granting a permit to split the remedies in such a way that the plaintiffs can file a claim for their full financial damages when they are fully formulated
The request for split remedies does not indicate one remedy or another that the plaintiffs did not include in their claim, but rather refers to future remedies for damages that have not yet been formulated. Here it should be said that as to the remedies relating to damages that have not yet been formulated, the plaintiffs could not have filed their claim here. Therefore, in any case, there is no need for a permit to split the remedies. Therefore, the requirement to grant a permit to split the remedies is denied.
- Conclusion
- In accordance with clause 14.1 above, I state as follows:
- The claim is accepted in such a way that I determine that the defendant is acting in bad faith, violating the agreement in which it undertook on December 29, 2020, and which received the force of a judgment.
- In order to avoid infringement, the defendant must transfer to the plaintiffs or any of them an area of 34 square meters, and it will be possible to see the good faith fulfillment of the judgment only to the extent that out of the area of 34 square meters that will be transferred to the plaintiffs, there will be a boundary line of at least 3.4 meters long, which will be attached to the plaintiffs' share or any of them. Simply put, the common boundary line between the plaintiffs' share or any of them and the area of the land that the defendant will transfer will be, at a minimum, 3.4 meters long.
- In light of the defendant's procrastination and conduct, which must carry out the transfer of the land, I determine that the actual transfer and the placement of the fence in the correct place will be until and no later than November 15, 2025. After this date, the defendant will be considered to have continued to violate the judgment.
- Regarding the determination of legal expenses and attorney's fees
- Normally, I would set the legal expenses and attorney's fees at the sum of ILS 20,000. In our case, and in accordance with the District Court's instructions, the appeal process that was accepted should also be addressed, without determining the costs. In this regard, the District Court ordered as follows: "In the framework of its judgment and when it comes to addressing the question of costs, the trial court will also give its opinion to the appeal process and its acceptance." In other words, a charge must be established that will also relate to the existence of the proceeding in the District Court, the filing of the appeal by the plaintiffs and its acceptance.
- Therefore, I order the defendant to pay legal expenses and attorney's fees in the total amount of ILS 40,000, plus linkage and interest differentials as required by law from the date of the judgment until the date of actual payment.
Given today, June 22, 2025