• Business

• news

Severe divorce dispute over the apartment?

The precedent ruling of the Rabbinical Court

An appraiser determined the value of the apartment, the wife submitted a bid that was NIS 250,000 lower than the value and won because the husband did not go to tender.

The regional court ruled that the result of the tender was invalid, but the rabbinical court accepted the appeal and put an end to a years-long dispute.

Tags

• divorce

Walla!

Business

Sunday, 29 November 2020, 15:07

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

• Rolink's suitcase

• Although they have already received reports and contrary to the guidelines: Malls ...

• Despite the corona crisis, the shekel strengthened and the dollar at the low exchange rate ...

• Loads in the malls participating in the pilot: "We missed ...

• Weaknesses in a job interview - Manpower Manpower

• Dozens of self-employed people demonstrate demanding the opening of street shops ...

• El Al flight landed in Abu Dhabi, Kushner: Hopefully it will be ...

• Men wait for their wives while they shop

• USA: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook were questioned in Congress about ...

• The road to a vacation in Eilat begins with a check of Corona: the city ...

• Carmel market traders were fined after opening stalls ...

• The economic cost of the climate crisis

AP, Reuters, Getty Images, Shutterstock

The Grand Rabbinical Court made a precedent-setting decision on appeal, ruling that the woman would be able to realize her winning the tender for the apartment she and her ex-husband shared - even though she only approached the tender.

In doing so, the Grand Court accepted the woman's appeal against the decision of the Regional Rabbinical Court to disqualify her from winning the tender, and to continue the pricing between her and her husband on the division of the apartment.

Adv

.

Avi Geffen, who represents the woman, argued in his appeal The conflict must be brought to an end.

The fact that the husband did not submit an offer does not give him the right to prevent the sale of the apartment to the wife and the termination of the property dispute regarding the apartment.

More on Walla!

NEWS

The Israelis who eat every day at the chef's restaurant at their home

In collaboration with Beit Balev

To the full article

After years the conflict is over (illustration)

As part of the divorce agreement of the former couple, who have been divorced for seven years, the regional court ordered the division of their apartment equally, and appointed the parties' lawyers as the receivers for the apartment. .

according to the agreement, the apartment offered a newspaper ad auction, which were submitting proposals together with a certified check, limiting the time. the woman is the only proposal submitted by the lawyers of both parties appointed receivers of the property, the amount of NIS 1,700,000, and enclosed a cashier's check required.

but the man, who did not participated in the tender, submitted an application to the court which demanded his share in the apartment according to the assessment, and asked to stop the continued sale of the apartment, claiming various flaws in the process. according to the law firm of cotton, these arguments raised for the first time only after the man passed Time to submit bids for the tender.

Thus, although the woman met all the requirements of the tender, the judges of the Jerusalem Regional Court ruled that her request to determine that she was the winner of the tender was denied. "In light of both parties' desire to purchase the apartment, the court finds no reason not to make a fair bid between the two." .

"If the parties do not succeed in doing so on their own, the court will consider appointing a third party to carry out the bidding between the parties."

Through Adv. Geffen, the woman filed an appeal with the Great Court in Jerusalem.

Advocate Geffen reminded the court of the long struggle the woman waged to end the proceedings between the parties. He claims that not only did the man not enter the tender process at all, he also uses the procedure to pull the end.

"The woman won the tender, and everything was done legally." , Argued Adv. Geffen.

"He didn't really want to buy the apartment, just keep anchoring it ... and how does he anchor it when she's in the apartment? She lives in a half-apartment that is still in his name, can't move anywhere else, can't start a relationship. Imprisoned."

To strengthen his words, Adv. Gefo claimed that the husband raised the tender by NIS 20,000 against his ex-wife's offer, that is, NIS 10,000 per party. "How much does the man's share go down here?", Adv. Geffen wondered.

"He does not pay alimony, he has an alimony debt of 150,000 shekels, and all the woman wants is to pay him the money for the apartment and be released already, and he does not allow her. I am afraid that this is simply an abuse of court proceedings," wrote Adv. Geffen In his appeal.

On the other hand claimed that the man's lawyer that the woman offering price reflects a loss, and that this was the intention from the outset. "There was one intention, to get the apartment at a price not worth its real price."

"The husband did not really want to purchase the apartment, but to anchor it."

Adv. Avi Geffen (Photo: Baruch Ben Yitzhak)

The judges of the Great Court, Rabbi Eliezer Igra, Rabbi Yaakov Zamir and Rabbi Avraham Shind, accepted Adv. Geffen's claims, and determined that the woman was the winner of the tender.

"The appellant is defined as the winner because she is the only one who submitted a significant offer in backing up a bank check," they ruled.

Concerning the moral and ethical aspect of the case, the judges made it clear that for them, the man and his attorney "asked and agreed to the outline set by the court ... actions taken by the receivers were to compel the parties to complete the transaction."

The judges also noted the High Court ruling "Court where consideration has been determined that increasing the equality tender consideration achievement of a higher value, and that the Court will not intervene in the process of sale and will replace the discretion of the trustee, except in very rare cases.

In conclusion set judges Great rabbinical Court that the sale was conducted according to the outline The rules, and that the price offered by the woman does not drastically exceed the price that could have been obtained according to the appraiser's assessment, and due to the corona period, which may also affect a decrease in property prices. In doing so, they accepted Adv. The sale transaction must be completed according to its offer.

The ruling on the appeal was given in the Great Rabbinical Court, and the decision is allowed to be published while hiding the details of the parties.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments