Civil Case (Jerusalem) 18644-01-25 Yair Lang v. Mishkan Eliyahu – Construction and Investment Company Ltd. - part 2

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

1. In a hearing held on November 25,2025, the parties reached an agreement whereby " it is agreed that the court will appoint an expert on its behalf and that the judgment will be given on the basis of the opinion without the need for further hearing, while the parties will reserve the right to send clarification questions to the expert before rendering the judgment."
2. It was also determined at the end of that hearing that the plaintiffs' counsel would submit the opinion on behalf of the plaintiffs (an opinion that was mentioned in the statement of claim but was not attached to it and presented during the hearing), the plaintiffs were allowed to split their remedies and the request to send a third-party notice against defendant 1 was rejected belatedly.
3. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, in my decision of November 25,2025, Engineer Zvi Ron was appointed as an expert on my behalf (hereinafter: "the Expert or "Ron"), with the parties' interim funding equally, while it was determined that:
4. "The expert will perform all the tests required in the defendants' apartment (hereinafter: the "Apartment") and/or in any other place in the condominium and/or the common property, in order to determine in an expert's opinion:

1. What are the causes and/or causes of the alleged damages, and in particular with regard to the alleged moisture damages;
2. What are the measures necessary to stop/repair the alleged damages;

• Detail the various damages caused to the apartment, and how to repair these alleged damages;

1. to determine a financial estimate for the repair of the alleged damages, including the damage to the apartment;

1. In the same decision, it was further determined that upon receipt of the expert's opinion, the parties would be able to refer clarification questions to the expert, and that after the answers to the clarification questions were given, if such were referred to the expert, the judgment would be given on the basis of his opinion without the need for further discussion.

1. Expert Opinion

1. The expert opinion of August 7,2026 was received on the same date, and it emerged, inter alia, as follows:

Sources of active and unusual dampness were identified in the master's bedroom (100% with a calibrated protimeter) and residual dampness, including signs of dampness on the ceiling and walls, including signs of moisture and local peeling of paint.  Since the expert's visit to the defendants' apartment could not be visually impaired, the expert ordered the appointment of a neutral auxiliary examiner - M.G. Home Services, who conducted tests in the plaintiffs' apartment by means of a thermographic scan and found that "the test findings were abnormal - during the examination, concentrations of moisture were found at high values in the ceiling and the master walls, indicating the penetration and spread of water in the structural ceiling from the floor level of the bedrooms in the apartment of defendants 2-3, which is built above, causing moisture damage in the plaintiffs' apartment as a result of water loads." In an examination of the moisture findings, it was found that "the findings of the baca were abnormal - abnormal concentrations were identified in the ceiling and walls of the parents' bedroom (in the plaintiffs' apartment)".

1. In the defendants' apartment, a pressure test was performed in the cold/hot water supply piping system and it was found that the test findings were abnormal.  In the parents' bathroom, a visual examination was performed in which defects were identified in "sealing in the intermediate compartments, wall encounters and floor encounters" and "defective application of a gun and flexible material that causes penetration and spread of water in the substrate filling the bathroom floor".  In the general bathroom as well, the findings of the visual examination were abnormal: "A sealing defect was identified in the intermediate compartments at the wall intersections and at the intersection of the bathtub-wall cladding materials, as well as a defective application of a gun and a flexible material that causes the penetration and spread of water in the substrate filling the bathroom floor." A fiber optic examination of a master bathroom in the defendants' apartment also found defects - "Leaky pipes were observed, including defects in sedimentation and standing water in long sections, indicating faulty underfloor slopes, including defects in the quality of the sealing in the master bathroom." An examination of the suspended toilet in a master bathroom revealed another defect - "a drop in the water level in the suspended toilet and the spread of water under the toilet was identified in a manner that indicates a failure in the pipe connector between the suspended toilet and the angle of the receiver."

0

1. In the test of the rainwater drainage pipe (hydrostatic test) - no defects were found and the test findings were normal.
2. A flood test performed on the balcony of the defendants' apartment also revealed deficiencies in the sealing of the balcony.  It was found that after 4 hours, water leaks were identified in the plaintiffs' ceiling when it was noted that: "During the inspection, a deterioration in the concentrations of moisture was observed in the ceiling and walls of a bedroom and a bathroom in the master bedroom with the beginning of a flood test."
3. The conclusions reached by the expert, based on the examinations carried out and detailed above and in his opinion, are that: "I am of the opinion with a high probability that the various signs of dampness, mold, and peeling of plaster and paint on the ceiling of the plaintiffs' apartment and in the walls...  are the result of an unusual and prolonged moisture content in the flooring substrate in the plaintiffs' apartment as a result of a combined failure, in violation of the Planning and Building Regulations (Application for a Permit for Conditions and Fees) 5730-1970, in contravention of the standard guidelines: 1.  Failure of the underfloor sealing system in the wet rooms and balcony.  2.  Failure in the plumbing systems - water and sewage pipes, in the general bathroom and in the master bathroom."
4. In his opinion (pp.  26-28), the expert detailed the manner in which he corrected the various defects in the defendants' apartment, which he estimated (in response to the clarification questions of August 3,2026) at ILS 20,000 (repairs to the balcony) and ILS 40,000 (repairs in the general bathroom and in the master bathroom).  He also detailed the repair of the damp damages that must be performed in the plaintiffs' apartment (p.  28 of his opinion), which he estimated at ILS 10,000.

17. In fact, the expert opinion indicates that the causes of the dampness in the plaintiffs' apartment (mainly in the parents' bedroom) stem from failures in the defendants' apartment, including sealing failures on the balcony and failures in the bathrooms.

• The main arguments of the parties in their summaries

18. The plaintiffs claimed in their summaries that the expert's opinion speaks for itself and that the defendants are sitting idly by, even though they should have carried out the repairs a long time ago. The plaintiffs emphasized their ongoing suffering as a result of the moisture damage and petitioned to accept the claim in full, as well as to impose significant legal expenses and attorney's fees in their favor.  In their summary, the plaintiffs requested that the court order that the expert supervise the execution of the repairs and ensure their proper conduct, at the expense of all the defendants - jointly and severally.  It was also requested that the court order a quick timetable for the execution of the repairs.
19. The defendants, for their part, did not dispute the expert's findings in his opinion, but sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' request to charge defendants 2-3 jointly and severally with defendant 1. According to them, there is no liability on the part of defendants 2-3 and the full responsibility rests with defendant 1.  It was argued that the expert's opinion indicates failures in the construction and not of the failures of defendants 2-3 themselves.  It was argued that there was no act or omission of defendants 2-3 that caused the damage.  According to them, unlike defendant 1 who denied the proceeding, did not file a statement of defense and received a judgment in its absence, the defendants cooperated throughout the proceeding and for this reason and for this reason she should be held fully responsible and funded.  It was argued that in these circumstances, the plaintiffs' request to impose expenses and attorney's fees on defendants 2-3 should be denied.
20. Discussion and Decision
21. Section 3(b) of the Common Regulations that appears in the Addendum to the Land Law - 1969 states that: "An apartment owner is entitled to demand that another apartment owner make a repair to the other apartment, the failure of which may damage the apartment of the person requesting the repair." Therefore, it is clear that an apartment owner in a condominium is entitled to demand that another apartment owner prevent dampness in his apartment, which originates in the apartment of the other apartment owner, and even oblige him to repair everything that is required for this purpose.
22. The fact that in accordance with the partial judgment there is also liability for defendant 1 does not detract from the obligation of defendants 2-3 according to the law, since they are the owners of the apartment in which the source of the leak exists. Therefore, the liability is jointly and severally, and any claim that defendants 2-3 have in relation to defendant 1 must be clarified in the appropriate proceeding, to the extent that it is opened (and without expressing a position on the chances of a proceeding when it is on the merits of the matter).
23. In light of the agreement of the plaintiffs and defendants 2-3, who accepted the expert opinion as decisive in their case, it appears that the dampness in the plaintiffs' apartment stems from failures in the defendants' apartment, including sealing failures in the balcony and bathroom of the defendants' apartment. No defects were found from sources unrelated to the defendants' apartment - such as a defect in the common property.
24. In the aforesaid circumstances, defendants 2-3, jointly and severally with defendant 1 in accordance with the partial judgment, bear full responsibility for repairing the sources of dampness in their apartment, as determined by the expert in his opinion.
25. Conclusion
26. The defendants, therefore, by means of a qualified professional and under engineering supervision, must carry out in the apartment of defendants 2-3 all the works detailed on pages 26-28 of the expert opinion (original numbering in the opinion itself). In addition, the defendants must carry out in the plaintiffs' apartment the repairs detailed on page 28 of the expert opinion.  The defendants will bear the full costs involved in the repairs to the plaintiffs' apartment and their apartment (jointly and severally with defendant 1).  The defendants fulfilled their duty upon receipt of confirmation from the court's expert that the work was carried out to his satisfaction, and will bear the costs involved therein (including an additional visit to the site or the appointment of an expert on his behalf to check the integrity of the work, if the expert so requires).
27. The full work will be paid by January 15,2027, unless the expert notifies in writing that due to weather conditions or some other reason, additional time is required to carry out the repairs (mainly the sealing repairs on the balcony of the defendants' apartment), at which point the court will set a different timetable, accordingly.
28. Defendants 1-3, jointly and severally, will reimburse the plaintiffs for the costs they incurred in order to provide the expert opinion (to the extent necessary, the plaintiffs will submit a ruling for the court's signature in relation to the amount and date it was paid together with a reference), in the court fee in the amount of ILS 755 and will also bear the plaintiffs' attorney's fees in the amount of ILS 12,000.  These sums will bear differences in shekel interest - the amount of the fee and attorney's fees from the date the claim was filed - January 8,2025, and the costs incurred by the plaintiffs for the purpose of providing the expert opinion (the expert's cost and the cost of the examiner on his behalf) from the date of actual payment to the expert.

Granted today, October 13,2026, in the absence of the parties.