And when asked why she did not detail that meeting in her affidavit, she testified, on page 47, line 31: "Because the meeting was with everyone, not just with Mr. Zvika."
Moreover, the fact that there was a personal meeting between Rubinstein and the plaintiff, prior to the meeting with the tenants, is supported by Rubinstein's affidavit, in his testimony (page 69, line 28) and in addition - in Appendix 6 to the defendant's affidavit - a summons to the plaintiff's meeting with Zvika Rubinstein on the 17th.1.18 at 11:00 a.m. In addition, in Appendix 7 to the defendant's affidavit, which shows that on January 18, 2018, the second addendum was sent to the apartment owners' attorney and it was written that it included two amendments. The wording, including the amendments marked, was attached as Appendix 9 to the defendant's affidavit, and it emerges that to the second addendum a clause 4 was added, which deals with the plaintiff's garden and states:
"A garden will be attached to the Ronda Golden Apartment (Apartment No. 1) as described in the attached plans. Insofar as there is a planning, registration or other impediment to the registration of the attachment or part thereof, the tenants give their consent to any registration or other arrangement that will guarantee the rights of Mrs. Golden and/or any third party who purchases the aforementioned apartment from her in connection with the garden area."
These documents support the defendant's claim, and accordingly, prior to the meeting with the apartment owners, a meeting was held between Rubinstein and the plaintiff, in the framework of which Rubinstein clarified to the plaintiff the problems involved in attaching the garden, and they reached an agreement and accordingly the TAMA agreement would be amended in the manner embodied in clause 4 of the second addendum.
In any case , whether it was a personal meeting or a meeting in the presence of all the tenants - there is no dispute and this is explicitly supported by the plaintiff's testimony - as stated above - that at this meeting it was clearly explained to the plaintiff that there was a problem with the attachment of the entire garden area to her apartment. In addition, the plaintiff also testified on page 48, lines 1-4 that: