Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 12210-01-26 L.A. v. M.F.

Judgment

Judge Naftali Shilo:

We have before us an appeal against a judgment of the Family Court of November 23,2025 (the Honorable Judge Sigalit Ofek in Family Case 2255-01-21 [Nevo]), which accepted the claim of respondent 1 and ruled that an apartment that was registered in a different appeal to the parents of the appellant and respondent 2, belongs to the respondents in equal parts.

1. Factual Background
2. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter: the Respondent or the man) was born in 1958 in Israel and when he was a child, he went blind in both eyes.
3. The man's parents wanted to find a bride for their son and fulfill his dream of marrying and having children. Therefore, in 1987 they traveled to Brazil with their son and made contact with a family of twenty years old (born in 1967) - she is respondent 1 (hereinafter also: the respondent or the woman).  The woman was a law student in Brazil at the time, and after receiving her family's blessing, she agreed to marry the man and move to live with him in Israel.
4. In November 1987, the man and the woman (hereinafter: the couple) appeared before a chief official in São Paulo and signed a declaration according to which they would have a property regime of "partial sharing of property" according to which they would share assets in relation to the property they had at the time and in relation to the property they would have in the future, including property received as a gift or inheritance (hereinafter: the Brazilian Agreement).
5. After about two weeks, the couple married in a civil marriage in Brazil and a few days later the woman immigrated to Israel.
6. In February 1988, the couple signed a prenuptial agreement in Hebrew, according to which a regime of complete separation of property applied to the couple, and in April 1988 the agreement was approved (hereinafter: the Israeli Agreement).
7. The woman converted to Judaism in Israel and in November 1990 the couple married as a Jew. During the marriage, they had two daughters (hereinafter: the girls).
8. The couple lived in an apartment owned by the man's parents in Tel Aviv until 2002, when the couple traveled to Brazil for a period of about a year. In October 2002, the man's parents purchased a new apartment in Herzliya from a contractor (hereinafter: the apartment), and in February 2003 the couple and daughters moved into the apartment, after returning from Brazil.
9. In 2014, the man's father passed away, and according to his will, his wife, the man's mother, inherited all of his estate (hereinafter: the mother).
10. At the end of 2016, the man suffered a stroke and as a result, the appellant - who is the man's only sister - was appointed as his guardian on 20 July 2017. On 28 January 2018, the appointment was replaced, and the Israeli Guardianship Center was appointed guardian of the respondent.
11. In 2017, the couple's relationship ran aground, they separated, and the woman filed a request for dispute resolution. In 2018, the woman filed a lawsuit to annul the Israeli agreement in the framework of Family Case 1365-05-18 [Nevo] (hereinafter: the previous proceeding). According to her, she was misled into thinking by the man and his parents that the agreement approved in Israel was identical to the Brazilian agreement.  According to her, she was promised close to the marriage that she would not have financial worries and that the couple would have real estate in Israel.  The court accepted the woman's claim and annulled the Israeli agreement in a judgment dated October 24,2019, determining, inter alia, that the woman did not understand Hebrew at all when the agreement was signed, and that it should be canceled even due to oppression, deception and mistake (hereinafter: the first judgment).  An appeal filed by the man against the first judgment was rejected on November 11,2020 (Family Appeal 12972-12-19 [Nevo]), and even an application for leave to appeal submitted to the Supreme Court was rejected on February 28,2021 (LA 8629/20 [Nevo]).
12. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The mother filed an eviction claim against the couple in December 2018, claiming that the apartment had been granted to them only by permission, and on March 6,2019, the eviction claim was accepted in the absence of protection, and as a result, the woman and daughters vacated the apartment and the man moved into the hostel.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

12. In May 2020, the mother passed away and according to her will that was executed, the man's sister, who is the appellant in this appeal, inherited her entire estate. The estate includes five apartments, a store, movables and cash.
13. On January 3,2021, the woman filed a claim for a declaratory judgment that would determine that she owned half of the rights in the apartment and for the dissolution of the partnership therein. According to her, the man's parents (hereinafter: the parents or the deceased) promised her that they would purchase an apartment for the couple, and on the basis of this promise she married the man. According to her, the parents also promised her in 2002 that they would give the couple an apartment as a gift if they agreed to return to Israel, and after they returned to Israel, the parents gave them the apartment and they treated the apartment like an owner for 17 years and their apartment.  The appellant, on the other hand, claimed that no undertaking was ever given to grant an apartment to the couple, and the woman even admitted in previous legal proceedings that she had no rights to the apartment, and that she was silenced from making another claim in this proceeding.  According to her, it was not proven at all that the parents gave the couple the apartment as a gift, no written document was prepared and the claim became statute of limitations.  The man joined the woman's arguments and claimed that the apartment was promised to both of them as a gift and that he was entitled to receive half of the apartment.
14. The trial court accepted the woman's claim and declared that the apartment belonged to the couple in equal parts (hereinafter: the judgment).
15. The appellant did not accept the judgment and filed the appeal before us.
16. Summary of the Trial Court's Judgment
17. The burden on the person who claims that the registration of the rights at the Land Registry Office does not reflect the true state of affairs is very heavy. After all, a real estate transaction requires registration in accordance with section 7(a) of the Land Law, 5729-1969 (hereinafter: the Land Law).  An undertaking to give a real estate gift is subject to a dual written requirement: both according to section 8 of the Real Estate Law and by virtue of section 5(a) of the Gift Law, 5728-1968 (hereinafter: the Gift Law).  The written requirement is a material requirement.  In order to recognize the obligation to give a gift that was not made in writing, "clear external evidence is required" and the required degree of proof is high.
18. Copied from Nevo In the case at hand, the woman was able to shoulder the burden and prove that she had been promised by her parents to give her and the man an apartment. This was proved by circumstantial evidence that supports her version.
19. The Brazilian agreement contained a promise by the deceased to give the couple an apartment as a gift. The woman testified that she would not agree to marry a man - who was blind, nine years older than her and had a 100% disability - to leave her country and her family, without a promise to give them an apartment.  The Brazilian agreement is the result of negotiations that took place between the woman and her family and her parents.  The woman testified that her parents promised them the apartment before the wedding.
20. Since the negotiators for the marriage were the parents who owned money and property, "a kind of 'curtain up' must be carried out by virtue of a doctrine of good faith, and it is obvious that the deceased, the owners of the money, were the issuer and the bringer, stood behind it." The Brazilian agreement, which stipulated sharing in gifts and inheritances, was also in the eyes of the parents, "a formative document for their promise."
21. A few months after the couple arrived in Brazil, the woman signed the Israeli agreement that stipulated that there would be no sharing of gifts and inheritances and that there would be a regime of complete separation of property. "Why were the deceased required to act in connection with the drafting of the Israeli agreement that specifically cancels the consent regarding gifts and inheritance? Is it appropriate that the deceased would be required to make such efforts if the Brazilian agreement did not contain an obligation to give a gift in real estate? ".  Hence, the obvious conclusion is that the parents made a promise and undertook to give an apartment as a gift.
22. After several years had passed and the couple had not purchased an apartment as promised, the couple left Israel in 2002 and traveled to Brazil, hoping to establish their home there on their own. However, the parents persuaded the woman to return to Israel and promised her to buy them an apartment in Israel.  "It makes no sense that the plaintiff, who had the courage to leave the country together with the defendant, and worked to settle in Brazil, would turn on her heels for no reason related to the ratification of the promise to grant an apartment."
23. The woman's "direct and coherent" testimony was not contradicted by the testimony of the appellant, which was hearsay testimony. The appellant testified that she did not take part in the events related to the promise of the apartment and its ratification.  The appellant has no personal knowledge that can refute the circumstances of the purchase of the apartment as detailed by the woman, and her knowledge stems from what she heard from the mother.  The conclusion is that the parents ratified the promise to grant the couple an apartment, a promise that was at least implicitly embodied in the Brazilian agreement, in a direct undertaking they gave in 2002.
24. The apartment was purchased for the purpose of fulfilling the promise. Since the couple moved into the apartment, the parents caused the couple to live in the consciousness that their apartment was theirs.  The wife followed the owner's custom in the apartment.  She chose the specifications from the contractor and also designed and renovated the apartment several times over the years, and the couple even held a housewarming.  The woman was not questioned about her version on this subject, and this has evidentiary significance, and therefore this version was not contradicted.  The appellant even refrained from questioning the woman who testified that she chose the furniture in the apartment.  The woman also testified that the mother did not enter the apartment at all for at least two years, from 2014 to 2016.
25. Even when the woman realized that the apartment was not registered in the couple's name, she still continued to believe that the parents were behind the promise, just as she agreed to return to Israel without being given a written reference. Although the parents signed a rental agreement, the couple was not required to pay rent.  The signing of the rental agreement was not intended to make it clear to the woman that she had no rights to the apartment, "but rather to 'put the plaintiff to sleep' under the pretext of receiving benefits related to the defendant's disability." According to the woman, the parents told her that if the apartment was registered in their name, the man's rights would be violated by the National Insurance Institute and even municipal taxes.  "There is no logic that the plaintiff who was required to go as far as Brazil when the undertaking was not fulfilled, and who returned after she was promised again that the undertaking would be fulfilled, and who was privileged to enter the apartment in which she behaves like an owner, will suddenly give up the registration of rights." The obvious conclusion is that the parents ratified the promise to grant an apartment.
26. In the midst of the divorce proceedings between the couple, the mother made a new will in August 2018 in which she granted her entire estate to the appellant only. "It is unreasonable to assume that the deceased who cared for their son... sought, for no reason, to dispossess their son, who has special needs who grew up following the stroke he suffered at the end of 2016, whose married life has broken up and there is no one to take care of him.  In these circumstances, the granting to the defendant alone is also foreseen, another way, to empty the promise promised by the deceased to grant an apartment."
27. The woman fulfilled her part of the marital and family obligation. She cared for a man who was a disabled person with 100% disability. The woman also contributed to the family's livelihood.  "The exceptional circumstances as presented above, in view of the problematic conduct of the deceased in order to renounce the promise in bad faith, justify allowing the plaintiff to use the 'cry of fairness' in order to fulfill the undertaking to give a gift in the land in the form of the apartment."
28. With regard to the appellant's claim that the woman is prevented and silenced from retracting claims she raised in another legal proceeding , this argument should be rejected. In the hearing that took place on the application for a protection order (threatening harassment and protection order 33280-08-18 [Nevo]), the woman said: "The house is registered in the name of my husband's mother, I have lived there for about 13 years. She asked me to contact and I contacted the lawyer and he said that at the moment she could not apply because it was in the middle of the proceedings and therefore the injunction was granted.  The house of my husband's mother, I do not say that it is my house.  I don't give her the house because I have nowhere to live, I'm still married to her son for 30 years and I have rights.  We had a prenuptial agreement that as soon as we're not in a partnership, he'll take care of me...  ".  This is not a confession by a litigant, since the woman was not duly warned, and it is not a "clear and unequivocal confession, but rather a description of a factual situation regarding the formal registration of rights, alongside a claim of substantial rights in the property by virtue of the Brazilian agreement." Therefore, the woman's aforementioned words should not be regarded as an admission by a litigant, which deprives the woman of raising her claims in advance.
29. The fact that the woman did not file a statement of defense in the eviction claim that the mother filed against her cannot prevent her from filing the lawsuit in this case. After all, according to the case law, in the framework of an eviction suit, the defendant's claims should not be discussed insofar as he claims that he has rights to the property, but the matter must be clarified in an independent proceeding. Therefore, "the failure to file a statement of defense does not indicate a contrary or contradictory claim.  On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that the choice not to file a statement of defense and to vacate the apartment stems from other considerations." The woman testified that she left the apartment with the daughters in light of the intimidation on the part of the mother.  In addition, at that time, the woman's claim for rights in the apartment was pending, and the court expressed its opinion that there was no room to deal in the framework of the eviction proceeding, with a comprehensive clarification of the claims regarding the couple's rights in the apartment.  Therefore, the appellant's arguments regarding impediment or estoppel are rejected.
30. The woman's claim was also not statute of limitations. After all, the statute of limitations begins on the day the cause of action was born. The cause of action - the breach of the promise to grant the apartment - became known to the woman only in the framework of the property claim she filed in 2017, when she found out that the mother was not behind the promise to grant the couple an apartment.  This is the date on which the cause of action was born, and therefore the claim was not time-barred.
31. The argument that it is possible to withdraw from the gift as a result of the woman's disgraceful behavior towards the parents and towards the appellant as an heir must also be rejected. According to the appellant, the woman forged policies drawn up by the parents for the man, tried to end the life of the man who was helpless and under her control, and incited the daughters against the mother. The reason for this is that according to the case law, the right to return is personal and does not pass to his estate.  As long as it is not proven that the parents reneged on their undertaking to give the couple the apartment as a gift, the appellant cannot do so.  In addition, there is no basis for the allegations regarding disgraceful conduct.  It has not been proven that the stroke that the man suffered is related to the woman's conduct, and the appointment of a medical expert on the subject has not been requested at all.  It was also not proven that the woman committed acts of forgery or fraud, and the mother herself did not claim that the woman committed acts of alienation in relation to the daughters.
32. In light of all of the above, a declaratory judgment was given according to which the rights in the apartment belong to the woman and the man in equal parts and both are entitled to be registered as owners of the apartment. The appellant was ordered to pay legal expenses in the sum of ILS 50,000 in favor of the woman and in the sum of ILS 15,000 in favor of the state, in light of the fact that the Legal Aid Bureau represented the man.

• Summary of the Appellant's Arguments

1. The judgment is erroneous and fatally violates the appellant's rights. The trial court ignored the lease agreement signed by the couple, and erroneously applied the doctrine of "crying out of fairness" and "lifting the veil".  The judgment was also given in contravention of the precedent regarding a single testimony against an estate.  The woman's claim was not based on any written document or positive evidence that could have contradicted the land registry.  It was not possible to enforce an undertaking that was not proven at all and was not supported by a written document.
2. The trial court also ignored the woman's statements in a previous proceeding in which she admitted that the apartment was not her and that her version in her claim was a suppressed version that lacked a basis in reality. The judgment "remained like a legal tower of cards that seeks to expropriate property on the basis of words floating in the air." No concrete and specific undertaking to grant an apartment was proven.  The respondent acted in extreme bad faith, when she left with the man to Brazil in 2002 without informing the parents.  The respondents were only entitled to permission in the apartment.  The parents never agreed to give the couple an apartment, and their firm position was that all their assets would remain in their possession until the day they died.
3. The determination that the registration with the Land Registry Office did not reflect the truth constitutes a fatal violation of property law. The parents signed a lease agreement with the couple and it was not possible to rely on the respondent's sole testimony.  The parents did not sign the Brazilian agreement, were not present at the time of its signing, and it does not bind them.  An attempt to extract a property promise from a defective document signed by the man who was blind constitutes "a distortion of the law of contracts and trampling on the property of the deceased".
4. The Brazilian agreement is invalid because it contains an internal contradiction. On the one hand, it was determined that the property sharing was partial, and nevertheless, it was established that all property was shared, including gifts and inheritances.  The man, who does not speak Portuguese, was signed blind and should be disqualified.  This agreement cannot serve as a basis for a proprietary obligation, especially in relation to parents who were not even a party to the agreement.  The respondent plotted to take over the man's property from the outset and she refrained from introducing into the common property a house that she inherited from her parents in Brazil.
5. The judgment "creates a shaky legal construction that imposes on the appellant an undertaking that was never given and in contravention of the substantive law". The absence of a written document proves that this is a suppressed version that was born solely for the purposes of the divorce proceeding.  In addition, the respondent deliberately refrained from summoning vital witnesses such as her family members.  In addition, the trial court erred in holding that the couple's signing of a lease agreement was an action intended to "put the respondent to sleep", instead of viewing it as an explicit admission by a party that the parents owned the apartment.  The respondent's participation in the rental representation before the authorities for decades drops the basis for the claim that it relied on a "promise of ownership" and creates a clear judicial estoppel.  In addition, the judgment created an absurdity, according to which the man, who never filed a lawsuit and never claimed that his parents promised him an apartment, was given a "forced gift".
6. The trial court ignored judicial estoppel, since in the application process for a protection order, the woman admitted that the apartment was not hers, and she could not make a contrary claim in this proceeding. Even a vague declaration that she was promised "that she would not have worries" does not establish a right to the land and certainly does not amount to a cry of fairness.  The fact that the respondent refrained from filing a statement of defense in the eviction claim and did not claim ownership rights in the apartment constitutes an admission that she has no rights.  The court also erred in ignoring the disgraceful behavior of the woman who abandoned the man during a stroke and deprived him of life-saving medical treatment.  In addition, the respondent "poisoned" the daughters against the mother, and therefore her demand for half an apartment constitutes brazenness.
7. 00The respondent chose to wait thirty years in the filing of the claim, when both parents had already passed away and therefore the appellant suffered irreparable evidentiary damage. The judgment deviated from cogent provisions set forth inthe Land Law and the Gift Law, according to which there is a substantive written requirement.  There was no room to apply the principle of "cry of fairness", which requires absolute good faith.  In the present case, this is a single testimony against an estate, an erroneous interpretation was given to the Brazilian agreement, the trial court ignored the confession of the woman's litigant and granted the respondent relief that he did not ask for at all.  The trial court ignored judicial estoppel in light of the respondent's declaration that the apartment was not hers, and also ignored her disgraceful behavior and the fact that the claim should have been dismissed due to statute of limitations and delay.

0

8. In light of all of the above, when the judgment constitutes "a legal tower of cards that lacks an evidentiary basis, while trampling on the property right and freedom of command of the deceased", the appeal must be accepted, the judgment should be annulled and it should be declared that the sole ownership of the apartment belongs to the appellant, and the respondent should be charged with legal expenses and attorney's fees.
9. Summary of Respondent 1's Arguments
10. This is a case in which the woman was exploited to the extent by the man's family, taking advantage of her good faith and innocence. After thirty years in which the respondent relies on the promise of her parents and fulfills the wishes of the man's family, the appellant tries to evade a promise made to the respondent, and to release her after thirty years of marriage for nothing.  The appellant is also trying to covet for herself the sheep of the poor - the apartment that was given to the respondents and in which they lived from the day they purchased it.  In this case, the cry of fairness exists in full force.
11. The facts of this case have already been examined by four different panels. The appellant is abusing legal proceedings in order to exhaust the respondent.  In the judgment given in the previous proceeding, the Honorable Justice Shani ruled in the first judgment that within the framework of the Brazilian agreement, the respondent undertook to share with the woman the gifts and inheritances he would receive.  In paragraph 64 of the aforementioned judgment, it was held that: " It is reasonable in my view to the plaintiff's version that not only at the time of the engagement in Brazil was she promised an asset without consideration and from which she could not be evicted, but that this was also promised to her afterwards in order for her to continue her service." In paragraph 69 of the aforementioned judgment it was held that: "The real agreement was fundamentally breached, lest you say that its execution was lacking in bad faith and fraud all along" and in section 83 it was held that: "When I was convinced that the defendant's family promised to give half an apartment, and in advance did not intend to keep its promise." This judgment was approved by the appellate courts and is final.
12. In this case, a full evidentiary proceeding was conducted, despite the determinations made in the previous proceeding, and another panel reached exactly the same conclusions. In exchange for the respondent's agreement to move out of her home, to move in with a blind man, who is 100% disability nine years older than her, in a foreign country that she did not know at all, while leaving her country and her family, the parents undertook to grant her and the respondent an apartment.  For this purpose, the Brazilian agreement was even signed, which anchored sharing of gifts and inheritances.  The respondent fulfilled her part of the agreement, traveled to Israel and cared for the man for many years, dedicated her life to the respondent and brought two daughters into the world with him.  At the time the Brazilian agreement was signed, no one had any property and it is clear that the intention of the agreement was that the parents would be the ones to give the apartment as a gift to the couple.  In light of this commitment, the parents rushed to get the woman to sign the Israeli agreement, so that she would not be entitled to the rights she was entitled to under the Brazilian agreement.  After all, if there was no promise to grant the gift according to the Brazilian agreement, why was it necessary for the woman to sign the Israeli agreement?
13. For more than thirty years, the respondent was a good woman and loyal to the respondent. She fulfilled his dream, raised a family with him, cared for and cared for him, took care of the household and raised the daughters, worked and provided for the couple.  A few years after her arrival in Israel, and when she realized that the parents were not keeping their promise, the respondents returned to Brazil.  In order to persuade the respondent to return to Israel, the parents presented her with a representation that they would purchase an apartment for the couple.  Following this promise, the couple returned to Israel and from the day the contractor handed over the key to the apartment, they lived in the apartment and behaved in the owner's custom.  The respondent chose the specifications for the apartment and they made renovations to the apartment over the years.
14. The parents' lack of good faith and their disavowal of the undertaking to grant an apartment despite the fact that the respondent fulfilled its part of the agreement, constitutes bad faith conduct that justified the use of the "cry of fairness". The appellant requests that the respondent leave today with nothing, while she alone inherited the entire parents' estate, which includes five apartments and a store.
15. The mother and the appellant herself took a full part in the conduct of the previous proceeding, and both testified in the same proceeding. The first judgment established findings with respect to the versions and testimonies of the mother and the appellant, and these conclusions are consistent with what was determined in the judgment.  The respondent relied on the promise of the respondent and his parents that they took a full part in the negotiations that took place prior to the marriage and that she had fulfilled her part religiously for over thirty years.  The mother even sought to take the burden of caring for the man off her shoulders and transferred it to the respondent's shoulders for thirty years.  It turned out that the parents did not intend to fulfill their obligations from the outset and tried to take advantage of the respondent and remove her after thirty years without anything.
16. The respondent has a clear right to half of the apartment, both because of the direct promise given to her before the marriage, which was even anchored in the Brazilian agreement, and in light of the undertaking given to her in 2002 in order to return it to Israel. According to the case law, it is possible to recognize the obligations to acquire the property even without it being anchored in writing, in view of the representations and reliance of the recipient of the gift.  In the present case, in view of the Brazilian agreement, there is no need for the respondent to prove a specific partnership with the man.
17. The parties lived in the apartment for many years, where they raised the daughters, and they behaved in the apartment like an owner without any intervention from the parents. The written requirement was limited in case law when it comes to a family relationship, where the overriding principle is good faith.  In order to recognize a real estate transaction, the court sufficed with proof that the agreement had been in fact in place for many years.  The Brazilian agreement, together with the representations, reliance, the use of the cry of fairness and the duty of good faith, justified accepting the woman's claim.
18. The fact that the woman vacated the apartment should not be attributed to her obligation. On the contrary, as determined in the decision in the application for an order to prevent threatening harassment, the appellant and the mother severely harassed the woman, entered the apartment without permission and vandalized her car (threatening harassment and protection order 33280-08-18 [Nevo]).  Therefore, it is no wonder that the respondent was forced to leave the apartment and protect the girls.  This argument of the appellant shows extreme bad faith on her part, when she also caused her brother to leave the apartment for the hostel.
19. The woman never claimed that the apartment was only hers, and the man's counsel categorically argued that the respondent also had rights in the apartment, and therefore this was the ruling. In light of all the above, the appeal should be dismissed and the appellant should be ordered to pay costs.
20. Summary of Respondent 2's Arguments
21. The first judgment, which annulled the Israeli agreement, served as a solid foundation for the findings set out in the judgment. In the first proceeding, both the mother and the appellant were interrogated.  The judgment is based, first and foremost, on clear findings of reliability, and the normative application is done in accordance with case law.
22. The court accepted the woman's version in its entirety and ruled that it was "direct and coherent" and that her testimony was not contradicted. On the other hand, the appellant's information is only hearsay testimony and therefore she could not refute the woman's claims that she was promised an apartment.  The trial court also relied on external evidence, such as the Brazilian agreement.  It is clear that the parents were the sole owners of the money and they were the ones behind the undertaking to provide the couple with "gifts and inheritance".
23. The case law softened the written requirement in family relations. In the present case, it was rightly held that the cry of fairness exists, since there is a significant reliance on the consent of the injured party, and on the other hand, there is an extreme lack of good faith on the part of the party who reneges on the obligation.  The "cry of fairness" was created precisely for sad circumstances like ours - to prevent the oppression of a converted and orphan.  The respondent relied on the promise of her parents and married a stranger and a disabled man, while the mother, on the other hand, acted in bad faith and signed the Israeli agreement while deceiving and oppressing.
24. In this case, the real estate transaction has already been executed. The fact that the couple returned from Brazil directly to the apartment that was purchased for them, practiced it as an owner's custom for 17 years and did not pay any rent, shows that the promise to purchase an apartment for them was fulfilled and that it was a fabricated act.  The trial court ruled that the respondent's testimony was reliable and that the appellate court was not inclined to intervene in findings of this kind.
25. Rule recognizes that formal registration is not decisive where a substantive right has been proven. In its ruling, the court explained why it was satisfied with the woman's sole testimony.  In addition, in the previous proceeding, the trial court heard the mother's testimony directly and determined its findings regarding the validity of the undertaking to give a gift, also on the basis of her own testimony.
26. The respondent's testimony was supported by external evidence: the Brazilian agreement, the purchase of the apartment shortly after the couple's return from Brazil, continuous living in the apartment for 17 years without payment of rent and the absence of any material connection of the parents to the apartment. The appellant knew nothing about the Brazilian agreement from personal knowledge and the respondent himself never argued anything against the Brazilian agreement.
27. All of the appellant's arguments with respect to the Brazilian agreement should be rejected, while the man never petitioned for its cancellation and it was valid. The respondent was expelled from his home to the hostel and in the end was even completely excluded from the mother's will and was left without property and without a home.  It is clear that he is entitled to half of the apartment.
28. There was no impediment to awarding relief in favor of the respondent even though he himself did not file a claim. After all, the three conditions set out in the case law for this purpose were met: the relief derives directly from the original relief that was requested, the facts and evidence were all clarified in court, and justice requires the granting of the relief.  The relief also derives directly from the substantive decision in the dispute and the gender of the company that was discussed - the question of ownership of the apartment.  There is no logic that only the respondent would receive half of the apartment, while the respondent would receive nothing.
29. In light of the aforesaid, and especially when we are already dealing with a fifth round of litigation in those disputes, the appeal should be dismissed and the appellant should be charged with expenses and attorney's fees.
30. Discussion and Decision
31. The judgment is detailed and well reasoned and is based extensively on the findings of fact and reliability of the respondent. As is well known, the rule is that: "It is not the way of the appellate court to intervene in the findings of reliability and in the determination of facts determined by the trial court, except in exceptional cases.  This rule is based on the rationale according to which the trial court was directly impressed by the testimonies and therefore has an advantage over the appellate court, which is only indirectly impressed by them" (Civil Appeals Authority 9304/17 Anonymous v.  Shirbit Insurance Company Ltd.  [Nevo] (January 4,2018)).
32. As determined in other municipal applications 6798/16 Leibowitz v. Yeresh [Nevo] (September 26,2017):

"As is well known, an appellate court does not intervene in factual findings or even does not place itself in the place of the first instance in examining the factual precedent that was laid out before it, unless there is a fundamental legal error on the face of the judgment or the matter is unfounded and unreasonable."