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
In an “heir after heir” provision in a will the first heir is entitled to do with what he received from the estate “as if it were his own.”
Wills and Estates
Intergenerational Law (Trusts, Estates, Lasting Powers of Attorney, Parenting)
Dispute Resolution
In a mutual will made by a couple an arrangement was established for heir after heir under which upon the death of one of them, his estate would pass to the surviving spouse and after the death of both spouses the estate will be inherited by their two daughters. Upon the wife’s death, her husband […]
One who induces a client to trade in the capital market while presenting false representations in bad faith may be personally liable to compensate them.
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A woman traded in the capital market through an Israeli company. The company representatives acted under fictitious identities, presented themselves as certified advisors, promised false “bonuses,” and applied continuous pressure on her to deposit funds while concealing material risks and without a proper license. As heavy losses accumulated and after she requested to withdraw her […]
An employer is not permitted to use the tips received by his employee to pay social benefits without the employee’s consent
Labor Law and Immigration
Dispute Resolution
Waiters employed at the luxury restaurant “Segev” received their salary from a shared tips pool. In 2019, the restaurant unilaterally decided, without the employees’ consent, to deduct 20% from the tips to fund social benefits and related contributions. The employees objected to the change and even took organizational steps to oppose it. The National Labor […]
It is forbidden to use a company name which may mislead the public that it is another company
Business, Corporate and Joint Ventures
Dispute Resolution
A man founded a company with a name that includes his full name. Thereafter, members of his family founded a company with a name that also includes the shared surname and deals in the same areas of activity. However, after decades of activity and an agreement between the parties that the first company would be […]