Co-owners of real estate executed a real estate partnership agreement but did not record it, nor recorded a cautionary notice in respect thereof, with the Land Registry. About five years later one of the owners sold his holdings to a third party in an agreement that does not give notice of the partnership agreement. The Court held that registration of a land partnership agreement gives it proprietary validity, i.e. validity also vis-à-vis third parties who were not a party to it. However, there are circumstances in which although a land partnership agreement was not duly recorded it will still apply to a third party if such third party about it or turned a blind eye. The purchase of land under joint tenancy is supposed to place a "warning sign" for the purchaser, and therefore an examination of the land registry alone may provide a very partial and sometimes incorrect picture regarding agreements as to the state of the rights in the land and the purchaser should check whether there is any land partnership agreement. In this case the purchaser purchased a specific part of the land and was expected to know that the real estate is shared and thus he cannot purchase a specific part unless there is a land partnership agreement and therefore the land partnership agreement applies to the purchaser.
Published in Afik News 241 11.10.2017
Related articles
A machine cannot be considered an ‘inventor’ under the Israeli Patent Law because it is not a human being
Copyright, Trademarks Media and Artists
Dispute Resolution
A patent application was filed as part of an international project aimed at formulating policies for granting intellectual property rights to inventions created by artificial intelligence. The application stated that the applicant for the registration of the invention is the representative of the inventor, an artificial intelligence (AI) machine, which generated the inventions autonomously and […]
The Hours of Work and Rest Law will not apply when it is not possible to separate the working hours from the employee’s private time
Labor Law
Dispute Resolution
Workers on the farm lived there with their families and worked day and night at varying hours according to the needs of the farm. The Labor Court held that the Hours of Work and Rest Law does not apply to the employment the workers due to employer’s inability to supervise. The Israeli Hours of Work […]
When ESOP are subject to terms to be agreed one cannot invalidate an employment agreement because of disappointment of the offered option terms
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
High-Tech and Technology
Labor Law
A startup company employed a scientist. The employment agreement stipulated that intellectual property belonged to the company and that the issue of employee stock options would be settled later. After 8 months, a dispute arose regarding the option terms (the company’s requirement for a vesting period and actual work), the scientist decided to go on […]
There is public interest to publish suspicion of wrong doing by a business to its customers, suppliers and employees
Privacy, GDPR, Confidentiality and protection of reputation
Dispute Resolution
A marketer of cosmetics entered into a franchise and sales agreement with a supplier. After the relationship between the parties soured due to allegations of fraud by the parties, the marketer expressed in various forums, including to clients and suppliers of the supplier, offensive statements regarding the conduct of the supplier. The Court held that […]