"The new owners' apartments" - 32 new apartments that will be consolidated for the owner, who will build in the new buildings in accordance with the provisions of this agreement, the consideration appendix (Appendix C) and the specification (Appendix C) with all their attachments, including sun balconies of 12 square meters for each new owner's apartment, warehouses and covered parking lots, and their relative share of the common property..."
- Clause 9 of the agreement stipulates that every apartment owner will be entitled to consideration in relation to the area of the apartment, balcony, parking, etc., as set out in Appendix C1 to this agreement.
This clause also stipulates that the developer will inform the apartment owners which apartments he is allocating to them of their choice, and that there is a mechanism that includes an assessment to be conducted by an appraiser, in the framework of which the original apartments and the consideration apartments will be scored and an allocation table will be prepared accordingly, in a manner that will ensure that the balance between the owners in relation to their existing apartment will also be maintained in relation to their new apartments. It was further clarified, for the avoidance of doubt, that there will be no balance payments (clauses 9.4-9.5 of the agreement).
- A land registry document was attached to the agreement as Appendix A2, an examination of which shows that the registered area of all the apartments in the condominium is: 61.30 square meters.
- In the table of consideration - which was attached as Appendix C1 to the agreement (as of page 161 of the statement of claim) - there are two types of apartments - apartments with an area of about 60 square meters (hereinafter: "the small apartments") and apartments with an area of about 86 square meters (hereinafter: the "large apartments"). The future size of the apartment in the fixed square meters for the small apartments is 78 square meters and the future size of the apartment in the fixed square meters for the large apartments is 98 square meters. In addition, it was determined that each apartment will be attached to a balcony of 12 square meters, a storage room of at least 4 square meters and one parking lot. In other words, according to this agreement, between the consideration areas for the small apartments and the consideration areas for the large apartments - there is a gap of 6 square meters in favor of the small apartments.
- As a preamble to the latter, I will note that the source of the gap between the various apartments is the building permits that some of the apartment owners received, and according to which areas were added to the original apartments. As for this expansion, I find it necessary to add and specify that - as appears from the wording of the registration - on October 16,1986, the condominium was approved for registration, with the area of all the sub-plots registered as 61.3 square meters for each apartment. However, in 1988, Plan Gv/386 came into effect, which increased the building rights for the purpose of expanding the apartments in the rear of the plot. By virtue of this plan, some of the apartment owners issued permits and expanded their apartments.
- As stated, out of 32 apartment owners in the condominium, 28 apartment owners signed the evacuation agreement, and the defendants are the owners of the four apartments who refuse to sign the agreement. All of the defendants' apartments are apartments that are defined as "small apartments" and in essence their claims revolve around the deprivation of their rights in the framework of the evacuation-construction agreement.
- Since the plaintiffs sought to uphold the agreement, while the defendants refused it, the lawsuit was filed before me on November 11,2024, in which the plaintiffs petitioned to enforce the defendants to sign the Pinui-Binui agreement, by appointing an authorized person who would sign the Pinui-Binui agreement in their place, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(a)(2) of the Pinui-Binui Law (Encouragement of Pinui-Binui Projects), 5766-2006 (hereinafter: the "Pinui-Binui Law"), and alternatively, the court was requestedTo determine that the defendants are liable for damages against the plaintiffs due to the damage that will be caused to them if the evacuation and construction project is not carried out due to the defendants' continued refusal, in the total sum of ILS 9,710,000 (for toll purposes), in accordance with the provisions of section 2(a)(1) of the Pinui-Binui Law. I will note that the plaintiffs sought to delete this remedy and a decision erasing the remedy was given on October 20,2026.
- In their statement of defense, the defendants argued that they should not be considered "recalcitrant tenants", since they do not object to the project, but rather claim that their rights were deprived and this is the source of their refusal to sign the agreement. Thus, according to the defendants, they were deprived of two main areas: first, due to a gap of about 8 square meters between the area of their apartments as determined by the developer (60 square meters) and their actual area (68.4 square meters of steel according to the measurement of a certified surveyor), a gap whose economic value is estimated at approximately ILS 364,000. Second, it was argued that for the purpose of a fair balance of considerations, apartment owners who did not expand their apartments, including the defendants, are entitled to an additional area of 11 square meters (according to a coefficient of 0.44) for building rights that were not realized, and not to an arbitrary addition of only 6 square meters, the economic value of which is about ILS 216,000 lower . The defendants further claimed that the entrepreneurial company acted in bad faith, when it systematically evaded providing a substantive response to their comments to the agreement, which were submitted in writing on July 20,2021; refused their proposal to appoint an agreed appraiser and surveyor; and refrained from presenting the economic report in accordance with Standard 21.
- In the framework of the first hearing that took place in the action on September 11,2025, the parties agreed to appoint an expert on behalf of the court to examine the appraisal and economic disputes. At the same time, I will note that in this hearing, counsel for the defendants explicitly announced that he agreed to the appointment of an appraiser on behalf of the court, but not that this appraiser would be a decisive appraiser (see page 3, line 14 of the minutes of that hearing). I will also note that in the course of that hearing, it was clarified that one of the questions that will be addressed to the appraiser is whether the method of calculating the area of the apartments for the purposes of evacuation and construction, taking into account their registered area and not their actual area, is an accepted method. As to this question, it was clarified by the plaintiffs' counsel, already at the time of that hearing, that according to his approach, there is difficulty in presenting this question to this expert, since: "There are two types of evacuation-construction contracts. One is the agreement to provide the area of the apartment plus an addition, and the other is to provide a consideration apartment in a certain area, and we are in the second alternative. What will be the benefit of [B.] The appraiser has this question." (ibid., on page 2, lines 29-31).
the court's expert opinion;
- Subsequently, in a decision dated September 11,2025, real estate appraiser Shlomi Maaravi was appointed as an expert on behalf of the court (hereinafter: "the court's expert"), in order to give his opinion on the following questions:
- Is the method of calculating the area of the apartments for the purposes of a Pinui-Binui project, taking into account the registered area and not the area of the field, an accepted method by the appraiser and whether its existence leads to a fair, reasonable and equitable distribution of the considerations, taking into account, inter alia, the planning and construction data of the project.
- Should a coefficient be determined - and to the extent that it is - for the planning option, which existed prior to the approval of the outline plan - for the expansion of the area of the apartments by an addition of 25 square meters.
III. Whether the entrepreneurial profit rate in the project is reasonable and meets the appraiser's scale as is customary in projects of this type, taking into account, among other things, the planning and construction data of the specific project.
- On November 13,2025, the court's expert visited the property in the presence of the parties, and on December 14,2025, his opinion was submitted. As part of his opinion, the court's expert made determinations and expressed his professional position, as detailed below.
I note that prior to detailing his response to the questions that were forwarded for his opinion, the court's expert devoted a few words to Standard 21.1 of the Appraisal Standardization Committee of the Ministry of Justice and the Appraisers Council, regarding the minimal detail required in real estate assessments proposed for the purpose of an economic appraisal of an evacuation-construction plan, from June 2022 (hereinafter: "Standard 21.1"). It was clarified that the purpose of the standard is to create a tool for the use of the various parties that will make it possible to verify that a particular Pinui-Binui plan is economically viable, so that together with a proper consideration for the owner, there remains a proper profit for the developer that will incentivize him to establish the venture. It was clarified that an appraiser may deviate from the provisions of the standard, provided that the nature of the deviation is recorded and reasonable reasons are given.