Minutes of the hearing of December 31, 2025, page 7, lines 17 to 19.
- The defendant, who is a realtor by profession, testified that he was the one who located the apartment and advanced the process of purchasing it. The defendant acted to execute the sale transaction. The defendant, who was well aware of the source of the funds and the affidavit signed by the plaintiff, detailing the gift money that was transferred to her, did not complain at any stage about registering the apartment in the plaintiff's name only. If the parties (or the paying father) wanted to grant the gift and the apartment to both parties, both parties would have contacted a notary public and signed the gift agreement before him, or alternatively, later upon the actual formulation of the transaction, the apartment would have been registered on both parties, since at that stage the father was not involved at all and did not reside in Israel. Therefore, the registration reflects the express desire to grant the gift to the plaintiff only. The defendant was aware of this and agreed to it. It can also be determined that the defendant agreed, even if tacitly, that the property purchased from gift money would be registered only in the plaintiff's name, and this would undermine his claim regarding the intention of sharing.
- The defendant's claims that he requested that the apartment be registered in the plaintiff's name only in light of the advice of his accountant were made without any evidentiary support. It was not clarified which businesses the defendant sought to hide from the tax authorities and what exactly the accountant's intention was in tax planning. In general, this is a claim that was made in a general manner and without any real detail. The defendant, as a real estate man with a diploma, fully understood the significance of his actions, and since he was unable to convince himself of what was behind that tax planning, the claim should be rejected.
- The affidavit signed by the plaintiff indicates the intention of both parties to give the gift on the one hand - the father, and the recipient of the gift on the other - the plaintiff. The fact that the details of the funds in the affidavit were transferred to the plaintiff only, while the apartment was registered in her name only later clearly attests to the intention of the gift giver to designate the funds for the daughter only as an "external asset" in accordance with section 5(a)(1) of the Property Relations Law. The affidavit signed by the plaintiff in effect fulfills a written requirement that is required by virtue of section 5(a) of the Gift Law, 5728-1968, which states that "an undertaking to give a gift in the future requires a written document." In the present case, it is a "intended" gift for the purpose of purchasing a real estate property, and indeed the "transaction" ended in registration, since the rights in the apartment were fully registered in the plaintiff's name, as required by sections 7 and 8 of the Real Estate Law, 5729-1969.
- After receiving possession of the apartment, the parties moved in. The plaintiff's father, who had previously experienced divorce proceedings from the plaintiff's mother, visited the parties in the apartment frequently and in fact was a frequent guest there. A confrontation broke out between the plaintiff's father, the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff's father beat the defendant - so he claims. This violent confrontation sparked the arbitration proceedings, when the plaintiff's father turned to the Monetary Court and demanded that the defendant return the apartment to him. Subsequently, he joined the plaintiff in these proceedings.
- Throughout the dispute between the plaintiff's father and the parties discussed in the arbitration proceedings, proceedings that took place mainly in 2016, the defendant consistently claimed that the gift money was given only to the plaintiff and that the apartment belonged to her alone. I'll illustrate. The defendant filed a motion with the Superior Court to cancel the father's claim. In the framework of this motion (page 23 of the plaintiff's exhibits file), a rabbinical claimant argued on behalf of the defendant that "since the owner of the property is not a defendant at all, there is no room to discuss with the defendant what does not belong to him." It should be noted that in all the arbitration proceedings the defendant was the "master of the proceedings" and he was the party who appeared and argued all the claims.
- An arbitration award was given in favor of the plaintiff's father. The defendant filed a motion with the Jerusalem District Court for an extension of the time for filing a motion to annul an arbitral award. The defendant was the one who filed affidavits and he tried to get the arbitration award annulled on the grounds that the plaintiff's father wanted to return the apartment that was purchased from funds he transferred to the plaintiff and that through which the plaintiff purchased the apartment in her name.
Thus, for example, the request for an extension of time was supported by a detailed affidavit by the defendant - page 27 of the plaintiff's exhibits file. The defendant stated openly that the apartment "belongs to her" and that failure to comply with the request may lead to the plaintiff losing "her rights in the residential apartment that she purchased". In the motion to annul the arbitration award (also backed up by the defendant's affidavit), it was noted that "the arbitral award dispossesses the applicant of an apartment that belongs to her and is registered in her name only, and orders the transfer of all her rights in the apartment that belongs to her." In section 20 there it is written: