Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 72240-05-24 Shalev Elhaik v. Prosper Ben Shitrit - part 2

 Background

1. On June 3, 2021, the plaintiffs signed a form ordering brokerage services by defendant 3, the landlord's daughter, who holds a brokerage license but whose main occupation is fitness training.  On the same day, Attorney Shahal, the plaintiff's father and counsel for the plaintiffs, was informed that defendant 3 was the daughter of the landlords.
2. On June 6, 2021, a rental agreement was signed between the parties, according to which a 4-room apartment was rented for a period of one year - from June 7, 2021 until June 6, 2022, at a monthly rent of ILS 10,000.  The lease agreement stipulates that tenants have two option periods to extend the lease period, of one year each, with an additional 5% of the rent for each option period compared to the previous rental year.
3. On February 17, 2022, the landlords notified the plaintiffs of the termination of the lease agreement at the end of the first year, on the grounds that they wanted to sell the apartment.  In response, on February 28, 2022, the plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter expressing their willingness to vacate, but demanded compensation for the early termination of the agreement and mentioned an amendment in the amount of ILS 950 that was paid by the plaintiffs and for which reimbursement was required from the defendants.
4. On April 20, 2022, the plaintiffs signed a new lease agreement for a 5-room apartment with a monthly rent of ILS 14,500 from May 14, 2022 until May 15, 2023, with an option to extend for an additional two years.  The plaintiffs vacated the apartment that is the subject of the proceeding on May 15, 2022, and paid rent until May 6, 2022.
5. Parallel to the eviction of the plaintiffs, the apartment was advertised for rent at a price of about ILS 12,000 per month.  Finally, on August 23, 2022, the apartment was rented to new tenants for ILS 11,500 per month.

 Summary of the parties' arguments

 The plaintiffs' arguments

1. The plaintiffs claim that as far as they are concerned, the right of option was an essential and central clause in the lease agreement, and without this right, they would not have entered into the agreement in the first place.  The defendants claim that the plaintiffs violated the lease agreement in bad faith, when they were denied the right to the option to extend the lease period, claiming that they wanted to sell the apartment.  This refusal, according to them, stemmed from the defendants' desire to raise the rent and charge an additional brokerage fee, and not from a genuine desire to sell the apartment.  The plaintiffs emphasize that the option clause was critical for them, especially in light of the plaintiff's pregnancy and the difficulty in finding apartments in the area.
2. Copied from NevoThe plaintiffs claim that the defendants are illegally holding a deposit of ILS 30,000, and even refused to return the undisputed part.  According to them, the apartment was returned clean and in good condition, and the defendants invented claims of damages in order to justify holding the deposit.
3. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that defendant 3 illegally charged them a brokerage fee of ILS 10,000 in cash, without disclosing in writing her closeness to the landlords (the daughter of the landlords), in violation of the Realtors Law and the Rent and Lending Law.
4. The plaintiffs are demanding the full refund of the deposit, the refund of the brokerage fees, compensation for the difference in rent paid in the alternative apartment, compensation for breach of agreement and non-exercise of the option periods, reimbursement of transportation expenses and repairs in the amount of ILS 950, compensation for mental anguish and legal expenses.  According to them, the defendants refused to cooperate in transferring the apartment bills in their names and caused them to find an alternative apartment with no other choice.

 The defendants' arguments

1. The defendants claim that they did not breach the lease agreement, but acted in accordance with clause 9 of the lease agreement, which allows them to terminate the lease in the event of a desire to sell the apartment.  According to them, their desire to move to assisted living was genuine, and the plaintiffs were represented by a lawyer who was involved in drafting the agreement, and therefore were aware of these conditions.
2. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs were the ones who fundamentally breached the agreement by leaving the rented property early, canceling the last rent payment, failing to pay municipal taxes and electricity bills, and leaving damage to the apartment, including a broken door.  They add that the plaintiffs made repairs without their approval and harassed them with incessant complaints.
3. The defendants claim that they are holding the deposit lawfully, in light of the fact that according to them, the plaintiffs have fundamentally breached the lease agreement and in light of clause 44 of the agreement, which stipulates a total of $200 for each day of the breach.  Subsequently, the defendants claim that the holding of the deposit is intended to cover the plaintiffs' debts and the damages caused to the apartment, which exceed the amount of the deposit.
4. With regard to the brokerage fees, the defendants claim that defendant 3 collected them lawfully, and that the plaintiffs knew of her proximity to the landlords even before the brokerage agreement was signed.
5. The defendants view this lawsuit as an inflated frivolous lawsuit and an abuse of court proceedings, since the plaintiffs filed an identical lawsuit in the past that was dismissed due to inaction, and they concealed this fact.
6. In light of all of the above, the defendants demand that the claim be dismissed while awarding the costs of the proceeding, including attorney's fees against the plaintiffs.

00