The reference to the transfer of a hearing venue given to other municipal requests 4460/22 Tirza Avidar v. State of Israel Center for the Collection of Fines, Fees and Expenses (published in Nevo; January 30, 2025) does not support its claims. In that case, it was held that liens registered in favor of the state by virtue of section 11A of the Tax Ordinance (Collection) on the husband's rights in the apartment were rejected because of a warning note that had already been registered on the apartment in favor of the wife in order to secure her rights by virtue of a divorce agreement that determined, inter alia, that upon the arrangement of the get and the validity of the judgment of the agreement, the husband's rights in the apartment in the wife's name would pass in full and without consideration. The transfer of a place of hearing in that case did not deal at all with the relationship between a prenuptial agreement and section 8 of the Inheritance Law. In our case, as stated, the prenuptial agreement also did not grant the respondent any right to receive the apartment (or rights in the "investment apartment" that was not purchased) on the date of the signing of the prenuptial agreement or prior to the death of the deceased, nor did it give the respondent the right to register a warning note on the apartment on the date the agreement was signed or on the date the deceased died (and even in practice, a warning note in favor of the respondent by virtue of the agreement was not recorded on the apartment, as appears from the wording of the Land Registry that was attached to the respondent's response of May 28, 2024, which was submitted to the request for a stay of execution, and no other argument was made in my arguments the Respondent).
In light of all of the above, I recommend to my colleagues that the appeal be accepted, that the judgment of the trial court be annulled and that the rights in the apartment must be registered in accordance with the inheritance order given after the deceased's estate. I will also recommend that the respondent be obligated to bear the appellants' expenses and the fees of their counsel in the sum of ILS 30,000 and to return the guarantee deposited by the appellants, with its fruits, to them through their counsel.