Both parties submitted opinions in support of their claims: the plaintiff submitted an opinion on behalf of CPA Alfia and the defendant on behalf of Adv. Hebron. A comparison of the two opinions shows that there is a consensus regarding the basic data.
The municipality's original demand was 91% of the value of the land, for a 49-year lease. Had the plaintiff complied with this demand, she would have paid ILS 8.4 million.
In practice and at the end of the proceeding, the defendant paid ILS 11,260,104. This amount stems from 3 lease periods:
ILS 1,926,387 for 2010-2017;
ILS 2,783,925 for 2017-2024;
ILS 6,549,792 from the date of the move from November 18, 2020 to August 31, 2059. This amount is after deducting the relative portion of the second lease period.
There is no dispute that from an economic point of view it would have been wiser to choose a 49-year lease track, from the very beginning (Kotler's testimony, p. 145, lines 18-19). The defendant chose the short routes of 7 years, when at the point of transition from one period to another, a new assessment of the value of the land was carried out. In the first period, the land was valued at ILS 9,247,737 and in the second period its value increased to ILS 13,364,400. If the defendant had chosen a 49-year lease track in the first place, the lease fees would have been paid according to a fixed land value, as determined at the beginning of the period, at which time the defendant would have paid ILS 6 million.
The plaintiff's claim is that in each lease period, the defendant won savings, in accordance with the conditions set out in the mediation arrangement. The defendant, for her part, claims that if she had received proper financial advice, she would have understood that the right track for her is the 49-year-old track and she would have been able to save considerable sums of money (paragraph 12 of Fisher's affidavit). According to her, Kotler, who is an economist by profession, was supposed to provide her with financial support, as Alfia CPA did. Kotler claimed that this was up to the decision of each lessee who acted in accordance with his own considerations. According to him, it was not his job to advise the defendant about the routes of extending the lease, and this is not within his area of expertise (p. 145, line 24).