Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 25510-11-24 Cohen Naftali v. Israel Hazemi

Judgment

I have before me a lawsuit filed by the majority of the owners of the rights in the condominium on 4-10 HaMa'amaq Street in Givatayim against four apartment owners in the complex, who refuse to sign the agreement for the execution of an evacuation-reconstruction project in the condominium, which was signed by most of the rights holders with Carasso Urban Renewal Ltd.  The main question to be decided is, in summary, whether the defendants' refusal to sign the agreement is a reasonable refusal in the circumstances of the case, taking into account their claims regarding gaps between the actual area of their apartments and the area determined as the basis for the consideration, and the scope of the additional area that they will receive in the consideration apartments given compensation to which they claim they are entitled for unused building rights for the expansion of their apartments.

Introduction;

1. The parties to the proceeding are apartment owners in a condominium that is an old residential building in a "Railway" building built in 1974, located at 4,6, 8 and 10 HaMa'avaq Street in Givatayim, and known as Block 6164, Plot 289, with a total of 32 apartments (hereinafter and hereinafter: the "Condominium"). The plaintiffs own 28 of the apartments in the complex and the defendants own four apartments as follows: defendants 1 and 2 are owners of an apartment known as subplot 2; defendants 3 and 4 are owners of an apartment known as sub-plot 9; defendants 7-10 are owners of an apartment known as sub-plot 11; and defendant 11 is the owner of an apartment known as sub-plot 15.
2. Around 2016, most of the apartment owners in the complex chose the developer company "Carasso Real Estate Ltd" (and later "Carasso Urban Renewal Ltd. - hereinafter: the "Developer Company" or "the Developer") for the purpose of promoting an evacuation-construction project.  In the negotiations between the apartment owners and the developer company, the apartment owners will be represented by the Elad Zusmanovich Law Office.  Initially, the project was promoted as a TAMA 38 project, and accordingly, a TAMA 38 agreement was signed by most of the apartment owners in 2016.  In this framework, the developer submitted a plan in accordance with Section 23 of TAMA 38 for approval by the planning authorities.  The plan was approved by the local committee on July 13,2017, after the implementation of changes, some of which stemmed from objections submitted, inter alia, by the defendants.  However, three appeals against this decision were submitted to the District Appeals Committee, which determined that the plan was not under the authority of the local committee.  Two administrative petitions were filed against the decision of the Appeals Committee, in which an agreed judgment was given on November 11,2020, according to which the plan would be transferred to the District Committee for further consideration .
3. The District Committee decided not to adopt the previous procedures, but to transfer the project to the format of an evacuation and reconstruction plan and to redeposit it with the addition of public benefits, such as the determination of an open public area of about 30% of the plan's area and the allocation of a publicly built area within the tower to be built.
4. On January 13,2023, a notice was published by the Chairman of the Tel Aviv District Planning and Building Committee regarding the deposit of a local outline plan Gv/616 "Urban Renewal Evacuation and Reconstruction in the Struggle Complex", the purpose of which is to demolish 32 existing units, build a new residential tower of up to 96 residential units, and allocate land for the benefit of the public.
5. On October 23,2023, after a discussion of the objections submitted (inter alia by defendants 1-2), the District Committee decided to give effect to the plan, subject to changes. On March 14,2024, the changes were implemented and the plan was published for approval, and on March 19,2024, the plan was finally approved.
6. Subsequently, on July 1,2024, the Government Urban Renewal Authority published a declaration on the complex as an evacuation-construction complex.
7. On January 16,2022, a Pinui-Binui agreement was signed between 28 apartment owners, out of 32 of the apartments in the complex - i.e., with all the apartment owners except the defendants (the agreement was attached as Appendix 5 to the statement of claim - above and hereinafter: "the Pinui-Binui Agreement" or the "Agreement")). As part of the agreement, a number of relevant provisions were established for the dispute that is the subject of the hearing:
8. First, in clause 1.5 of the agreement, the following definitions were set for the existing apartments and the new owners' apartments:

"Existing apartments" - 32 residential apartments, known as subplots 1 - 32 according to the registration document - 8 apartments at each of the four entrances of the existing building.