In the appeal before us, the appellants argue that the provision of section 15.14 of the agreement, according to which the respondent is entitled to receive full ownership of the investment apartment after the death of the deceased, is a "hereditary" provision that is contrary to the provision of section 8 of the Inheritance Law with its two alternatives, and as such it is invalid. Alternatively, the appellants argue, insofar as the court is of the opinion that this is a valid provision, then the provisions of sections 15.14 and 15.19 of the agreement do not apply in the present case, for reasons of the interpretation of the agreement (paragraphs 27 and 48 of the notice of appeal).
The respondent's response to the appeal was requested, and it was submitted on July 7, 2024. In the reply, no substantive reference was given to the appellants' arguments in the appeal, and it amounted to procedural arguments (exceeding the page limit in the appeal; attaching documents that were not before the trial court; and insufficient detail regarding the relief requested in the appeal) which, in the respondent's position, justified the dismissal of the appeal in limine.
On January 23, 2025, a hearing was held on the appeal.
After we had confronted the respondent with the deficiency in her response to the appeal, the respondent's counsel sought to respond substantively to the arguments that arose from the appeal. In the framework of the hearing that took place, as well as taking into account the fact that the legal argument raised by the appellants in the framework of the appeal (according to which the provision of clause 15.4 of the agreement is a "hereditary" provision that is contrary to the provision of section 8 of the Inheritance Law and as such is invalid) was not raised as a defense argument before the trial court against the respondent's claim, it was agreed that in this matter and in this matter alone the respondent will be entitled to submit its arguments (in response to the appellants' arguments in the appeal in this matter) in writing, in the scope of 5 pages, while retracting the threshold arguments and waiving the argument that the appellant is prevented from raising her claim regarding section 8 of the Inheritance Law, and the appellants will be entitled to a reply of three pages (see pp. 4-6 of the minutes of the hearing).