Business
The Moshavnik, the Children and the Assault Dogs: The Soap Opera That Came to Court
Drama in Sharon: The children of the Moshavnik who passed away fortified themselves and refused to vacate their grandfather's estate without compensation, while terrorizing the heir of the farm.
The family court was forced to address the complex issue. What was the ruling?
Tags
Gan Yavne
David Rosenthal
Monday, 08 March 2021, 11:46 Updated: 12:51
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
The Petah Tikva Family Court recently ruled in a family dispute.
In the lawsuit, which was filed by the heir of the farm, through attorney Inbar Lev, he claimed that his nephews fortified the farm, disturbing him and making his life miserable by bullying. He claimed that the nephews installed cameras facing his house and violated his privacy, placed attack dogs and intimidated him. It is legal that the authorities want to destroy it, and as a result he was forced to break into it and evacuate it. The nephews claimed on the other hand that their uncle had invaded their apartment and illegally removed objects from it.
More on Walla!
NEWS
Jumping into the water: Rona Lee Shimon and Ziv Shilon met for a chat and a swim
To the full article
"The nephews installed cameras that point to his home and infringe on his privacy, placed attack dogs that intimidate him, and took over an illegal structure, which the authorities want to destroy, and as a result was forced to break into and evacuate it" (Photo: ShutterStock)
About three years ago, an affair unfolded at the door of the family court, so the nephews argued that the agreement signed between their late father and his brother should not be recognized - which stipulated that the uncle would be considered a successor to the estate.
The family court accepted the agreement between the brothers, and ruled that the plaintiff (the defendants' uncle) was entitled to register as the owner of the rights in the farm as a continuing son. Despite this ruling, the nephews refused to vacate the estate, appealed to the district court and their appeal was denied. Water to the soul, he was forced to file a lawsuit in the Family Court against his nephews, requesting their removal from the farm.
"The defendants refuse to accept the decision, fortifying the farm against the will of the plaintiff, who was forced to conduct evidence in this lawsuit," Advocate Lev argued in the lawsuit. "They have no right in the economy, they operate without permission and cause him heavy damage and mental distress. The plaintiff has the right to do in the economy as his own, including removing him from a person and an object."
Advocate Lev added that the presence of the nephews in the economy is illegal and they are intruders. "The ruling has already been given that the plaintiff is the continuing son, and the ruling should not be interpreted differently.
The defendants' conduct is bullying, they abused him. "
"There is no room for objection to a judgment rendered"
Adv. Inbar Lev (Photo: Moshe Ron)
On the other hand, the nephews claimed that their uncle was not allowed to evict them, since in the heirs' agreement, signed between him and his brother in 2014, he undertook to leave them on the farm and not act to dispose of them.
Under the same agreement, they argued, if he acted to dispose of them, he would have to compensate them.
Judge Eilat Golan-Tavori of the Family Court in Petah Tikva rejected the defendants 'claim regarding the agreement between the heirs and sharply criticized them: "The claim contradicts the defendants' claim in the previous proceeding, since the defendants did not recognize the agreement between the heirs and the plaintiff." "The reciprocity between the parties that has been going on for years. It is not clear how a robbery that they attacked in an earlier procedure can be constructed today."
The judge accepted Adv. Lev's claims and ruled that a landowner and whoever is entitled to hold them, is entitled to demand the delivery of the land from the person who holds them illegally. "The plaintiff was entitled to petition for the defendants' eviction from the farm, contrary to the defense's claim." The defendants are in fact objections to the judgment rendered, and have no place here, since they have already been decided.
Not the place to discuss them again. "
The court accepted the claim and ordered the removal of the grandchildren economy of their grandmother and grandfather deceased following an incursion against the law. The judge ordered the removal of the defendant from the farm on parcels within 90 days and without any compensation from the claimant. Also Ruled that the defendants will bear the plaintiff's legal expenses in the amount of NIS 15,000.
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
