Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 47648-11-22 Rhonda Golden v. Beit VeGag St. 4-2 Renanim St. Ramat Gan

Judgment

In the proceeding before us, the claim of Rhonda Golden, who, as the owner of an apartment in a condominium at 2-4 Renanim Street in Ramat Gan, entered into an agreement with Bayit VeGag - the developer of a TAMA 38 project in the condominium.  As part of the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims in summary that as part of the set of agreements between her and the defendant, she paid the sum of ILS 950, 000 for upgrading her apartment to a garden apartment with a garden of 128 square meters.  In practice, however, the plaintiff was given a much smaller garden, part of which was subtracted and turned into a common area.  According to her, in her conduct as aforesaid, the defendant violated a material contractual obligation and enriched herself unlawfully at her own expense, and therefore her claim was filed, in which the plaintiff petitioned for relief enforcing the undertaking to attach a garden in the agreed area to the plaintiff's apartment, and alternatively, for the return of the consideration that was paid by her in excess in respect of this agreed addition.  The defendant contends in summary that the attachment of the garden area to the plaintiff's apartment was subject to the municipality's approvals and that the plaintiff was aware in advance of the planning limitations that might not allow the entire area of the garden to be attached to the apartment and agreed to them.  It was argued that in these circumstances, the defendant did not breach its undertaking, and moreover, in light of the parties' agreements, that in any case the plaintiff is not entitled to enforcement of the agreement or to monetary compensation at all, and in the amount claimed in particular.

Introduction;

1. The plaintiff - Rhonda Golden, was the owner of an original apartment (subplot 9) in a condominium at 2-4 Renanim Street, Ramat Gan, known as Plot 141 in Block 6203 (hereinafter: "the plaintiff's original apartment" and "the condominium").
2. The main defendant in the proceeding (defendant No. 1) is "Beit VeRoof 2-4 Renanim Street", a limited partnership, which served as the initiator of a TAMA 38 project in the building (hereinafter: "the defendant").
3. I will note that in addition to defendant 1, the original owners of the rights in the condominium (defendants 2-31) as well as the purchasers of new apartments in the condominium (defendants 32-70) were added as defendants in the proceeding. However, there is no dispute that these defendants did not take an active part in the proceeding.

Thus, of all the defendants, with the exception of defendant 1, only defendants 44 filed statements of defense: Baruch Revital and Baruch Ronen and defendants 61 - Ben Ali Sigal and Ben Ali David Amram.  In their statements of defense, these defendants claimed that when purchasing their apartments, they relied on the plans that were attached to the purchase agreements, according to which the disputed plot (the area of the garden in question) was presented as a common area.  It was further claimed that the contractual system between the plaintiff and the defendant was not known to them at the time of signing the agreements, and that they relied solely on the plans that were attached.  Finally, they argued that attaching the disputed plot to the plaintiff would constitute a violation of their property right, since it was a common area on which they had acquired rights.  This is in light of clause 8 of the purchase agreement they signed, which allows the developer to attach areas of the project "except for those parts of the condominium that were removed and/or removed by the seller, at its discretion, from the common property in the condominium".