These documents show that the representation presented to the plaintiff and stated in the sale agreement was not a misrepresentation, but rather that the project is indeed located in the Arza complex, which is geographically located in Motza Illit. As this was also presented in official documents of the relevant authorities.
- In order to prove their claim that the defendant knew of the need to amend the municipal boundaries even before the building permit was issued and at the time the sale agreement was signed, the plaintiffs rely on a letter from the defendant's legal advisor, Adv. Israela Fender, dated October 18, 2017 (Appendix 3 to the plaintiffs' affidavit). First of all, I will note that as it appears from the letter, this is not a binding legal opinion, but rather a letter that is an "overview".
- Second, I did not find that this letter substantiates the alleged deception.
As stated, the sale agreement was signed on June 7, 2016, more than a year prior to this letter. The plaintiffs' argument is that the issue of municipal affiliation was known to the defendant prior to the signing of the sale agreement. Adv. Fender was not brought to testify by any of the parties, and accordingly the letter cannot be interpreted beyond what is stated in it.
As it emerges from the letter, historically the Arza complex was not included in the jurisdiction of Motza Illit, because there were no residential buildings and permanent residents, and therefore, with the approval of the zoning plan, the issuance of building permits and the execution of residential construction work, the need arose to amend the municipal boundaries and include the Arza complex in the jurisdictional area of Motza Illit. A request in this regard was submitted by the local authority - the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council and approved by the Minister of the Interior. However, in this letter, Adv. Fender explicitly states that "in all the documents according to which the land of the complex was purchased, such as the approved T.B.A. in which the designation of the land for residential purposes has already been approved, the building permits, the lease contract issued by the Israel Land Administration, etc., it is defined that the complex is located in Motza Illit." In other words, the lands of the complex were purchased with the knowledge that the complex is located in Motza Illit, as appears in the relevant documents at the time of purchase.
- The defendant's VP of Engineering, Simcha, testified that it was not the defendant's job to clarify the issue of municipal affiliation, who collects municipal taxes or the registration procedures for educational institutions. Simcha testified that the defendant conducted inspections and on the basis of the documents in her possession, the project is located in Motza Illit. The defendant was not aware of the problem of municipal affiliation until the apartments were populated and the municipal tax bills were received, because all the documents stated that the project was located in Motza Illit. This issue is the responsibility of the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council, which handled the matter with the Ministry of the Interior. Simcha testified that the plaintiff purchased the apartment when it was already built, and that he could also see where the apartment was located (paragraphs 9-13 of Simcha's affidavit; transcript of the hearing dated February 19, 2025, at p. 36, paras. 21; at p. 38, paras. 22-30; p. 39, s. 1-14; p. 41, s. 1-26). Simcha's testimony was clear and coherent, did not contradict and was consistent with the documents from real time, which testify that the project was defined as being located in Motza Illit.
- The testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses, Stern, Faraji and Cohen, also did not assist in this matter and did not substantiate the alleged deception against the plaintiffs themselves.
- Thus, I found that the defendant's representations matched the documents in her possession, according to which the project is located in Motza Illit. The plaintiffs purchased the apartment when it was already built, when the documents were at their fingertips, and they were able to examine the question of municipal affiliation, insofar as it was important for the purchase of the apartment. Accordingly, I did not find that there was a breach of a contractual obligation on the part of the defendant regarding the assignment of the project.
- I will add to this that I also did not find that the plaintiff proved the damages caused to him. The plaintiff testified in this regard that "it is not impossible, and even almost certainly, if we had known that the project was not associated with Motza Illit, we would not have purchased the apartment from the defendant, but rather purchased one of the apartments in Jerusalem and another house that was presented to us in Motza Illit" (paragraph 10 of the plaintiff's affidavit). Beyond the fact that this is a single testimony of a litigant, it is a mere reasoning that is not supported by any reference. The plaintiffs claim that the property tax was higher because the compound did not belong to any locality and that they could not elect and be elected in municipal elections, participate in the community's activities, be included in educational institutions and are regulated for adults. This claim has not been proven either. As stated, at the time of the evidentiary hearings in the proceeding, the project was already connected from a municipal point of view to Motza Illit, and no evidence was presented that the plaintiffs suffered damage in respect of the years in which the municipal allocation process was carried out.
- In summary of this chapter, I did not find that the plaintiffs proved deception or misrepresentation and lack of good faith on the part of the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation from the defendant for this component or for the mental anguish caused to them as a result of it.
- In view of this conclusion, I did not find it necessary to address the dispute between the parties (although the parties elaborated and elaborated on this issue) with respect to the inclusion of this remedy in the parallel claim filed by the plaintiffs and other parties in the District Court. As the plaintiffs stated, they deleted this remedy from their parallel claim, and in any event it is clear that it is not possible to receive double compensation.
Compensation for mental anguish and expenses
- The plaintiffs claim in their summaries that the defendant ignored their inquiries that began even before the delivery of possession of the apartment, the defendant as a whole disavowed its responsibility and did not deal with the defects that included moisture defects, with the exception of a few exceptions (repair of the compressor and partial expansion of the niche in the service room), and the date of delivery of possession was postponed due to the plaintiffs' refusal to accept the apartment with moisture defects. The plaintiff further claims that he was forced to waste many hours in order to arrange the assignment of the project. Therefore, they should be compensated with compensation for emotional distress in the amount of ILS 50,000.
- Compensation for mental anguish is at the discretion of the court, which takes into account a range of considerations, including the scope and severity of the defects, the cost of the defects, the extent of their impact on the use of the apartment, the delay in filing the claim, the mental anguish involved in correcting the defects, the amount of compensation awarded and other considerations (see in this regard other municipal applications 5602/03 Segal et al. v. Housing and Development for Israel in a Tax Appeal (February 28, 2005); as well as in Civil Case (Central District) 2270-08-07 Allegria v. Plasim Development and Construction Company in a Tax Appeal (May 11, 2010)).
- As to the alleged mental anguish caused to the plaintiffs as a result of the construction defects, it cannot be ignored that the list of defects as expressed in the expert opinion is significantly lower than that raised in the statement of claim. Similarly, the plaintiffs lived in the apartment and still live in it. As the expert determined, performing the repair of the defects does not require the plaintiffs to leave the apartment. Thus, even if there is subjective anguish to the plaintiffs as a result of the various defects, it is objectively at the low threshold. I will add that as I was impressed during the proceeding and from the plaintiff's testimony, the plaintiff chose to adopt a belligerent and confrontational approach, under cooperation and allowing the defendant to deal with all the alleged deficiencies. His claim of mental anguish caused to the plaintiff, which is dozens of times greater than his mental anguish, was also not expressed in the testimony of the plaintiff, who chose not to testify in this proceeding (transcript of the hearing of February 19, 2025, at p. 27, para. 39). As to the mental anguish caused to the plaintiffs as a result of the noise impairment in the leaky pipes, as stated, the expert did not find a defect and also testified that during his visit he was not impressed by unusual noise. Thus, no objective defect has been proven, and to the extent that the plaintiffs have subjective mental anguish, it is not subject to the defendant's compensation.
- As to the claim regarding the mental anguish caused by the question of the allocation of the apartment, as stated, I did not find that the defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiffs for this component. To this, I will add that the plaintiff's claim for the considerable time invested by him in attributing the project to Motza Illit was not supported by evidence (ibid., at pp. 28, paras. 26-29; p. 29, paras. 8-9). In any event, there is no dispute that the project is currently located, also from a municipal point of view, in Motza Illit.
Thus, taking into account the scope and severity of the defects claimed, as opposed to those that were actually awarded and their cost; taking into account the extent of their influence on the use of the apartment, which was negligible; and taking into account the amount of compensation awarded against the amount claimed; and also taking into account the general conduct of the plaintiffs; I have not found any additional compensation to award the plaintiffs for the mental anguish caused to them.