The hot and a quarter of a million shekels: Why will the groom who invested not see the money anymore?

A man who invested a quarter of a million shekels in buying a plot of land for his ex-mother-in-law demanded to be considered a partner in owning the plot, but the court ruled that he would not enjoy the fruits of the investment.

Why did this happen?

David Rosenthal

15/06/2022

Wednesday, 15 June 2022, 09:14

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

• Share on general

• Comments

  Comments

The Family Court in Kiryat Shmona and the Nazareth District Court were required to deal with an interesting issue that included a joint investment of family members in the property.

The plaintiff lived in an apartment on the kibbutz with his partner, a daughter of a kibbutz member who later became his wife and eventually his ex-wife and the mother of their joint child.

The couple's financial situation was not good, and after conducting a geographical survey in the immediate area, they came to the conclusion that they could not purchase a land house.

In light of the situation, the couple began proceedings to be admitted to the kibbutz and at the same time approached and won a lottery for the purchase of a plot of land in the kibbutz in the 'extension' area.

After winning the lottery, they came to the conclusion that they did not have enough money to realize the win, gave up the win and also decided to freeze the procedures for accepting them as members of the kibbutz.

The mother-in-law, a kibbutz member, decided to purchase a lot of land herself, when the contract stipulated that after the construction of the house on the plot she won, she would return to the kibbutz the apartment in which she lived.

Subsequently, the couple were entitled to be included in the price per occupant being homeless.

More on Walla!

Zoom, hybrid work and home tests: this is how the labor market in Israel has changed

In collaboration with ManpowerGroup

The house was not built, the money was not returned (Photo: ShutterStock)

The divorcee claimed in the lawsuit against his ex-wife and ex-mother-in-law that the couple had come to the conclusion that the only option available to them to build a house was to purchase a plot of land through the mother-in-law / mother.

In this way, the plot will be registered in its name and in this way its price will be much lower, since veteran kibbutz members have received a significant discount on the purchase of the plot extensively.

According to him, between the couple and the mother-in-law / mother there was an oral agreement according to which the plot, although the rights in it are registered in the name of the mother-in-law, will in fact be a plot used only by the couple and they will build their house on it.

The plaintiff further claimed that in order to secure their rights, the mother-in-law signed a will in which she commands her rights in the land she purchased and what will be built on it for the couple in equal parts.

The divorcee added that they paid about a quarter of a million shekels for the payments on the plot: public infrastructure and private infrastructure, electricity connection, architects' fees, opening a case in Rami, for the assessment, the planning and construction committee and more. And he claims his right not only to receive the money invested in the plot but rights in the plot itself, which in the meantime the emir has valued.

The mother-in-law, for her part, stated in the written defense submitted by Adv. Lirit Avital Bar Natan on her behalf and on behalf of her daughter, that she purchased the plot and designed the house that would be built on it and that she gave the architect an almost free hand to design the house. And to my grandchildren. "She admitted that the couple transferred money to her for the purchase of the land and the related payments. Or a written or oral agreement with respect to the land.The written defense argued that the acceptance of the claim, is that the mother, an elderly woman and a kibbutz member for decades, would lose her roof and be left with no option to build a house.

Regarding the will, the mother claimed that it actually supports her version according to which the plot and everything that will be built on it belongs only to her and her, because otherwise she cannot team it to others.

According to their attorney, the couple could have purchased a plot of land in their name, they even won the lottery, but decided on their own to stop the admission procedures for companies and gave up the plot of land on which they won.

It was therefore not necessary that they use her name to win the field.

Adv. Lirit Avital Bar Natan (Photo: Yachz)

Judge Ran Arnon of the Family Court in Kiryat Shmona noted that the question to be examined is whether it is possible to be recognized as having paid significant consideration for the land, as the owner of the land, even though it is registered in the mother's name and that no written agreement has been made.

He stated that there is no dispute that the couple invested money in connection with the plot and that these are considerable sums of money.

At the same time, the evidence shows that not only the couple invested money and at least some of the money was paid by the mother's husband.

The judge accepted the arguments of Adv. Bar Natan, who deals with family and inheritance law, according to which the couple could, in principle, purchase a plot of land in their name and later build a house on it.

The judge added that there is no written document indicating a transaction and there is no report to the tax authorities on the execution of a transaction.

What's more, the plaintiff testified that the couple themselves did not believe that the plot in which they invested money would be theirs and would be registered in their name.

Evidence of this is that the couple signed up for the "price per occupant" program of the Ministry of Construction and Housing, a program designed for the "homeless" only.

Anyone who declares in one place that he does not own any property in order to qualify for housing benefits from the state authorities, can not "wake up" after several years and claim that there is in fact a real estate property belonging to him, although not registered in his name. Good faith.

The judge accepted the claim of the mother and her daughter's attorney and ruled that there was a real claim that the making of the will shows that the mother never intended to give up her rights on the land or give them as a gift in her life.

The will teaches the opposite that according to the will the land and built on it belongs to the mother and will remain hers until her death, for otherwise, how can she inherit property that is not hers?

The judge also rejected the plaintiff's claim of good faith and 'cry for fairness' and ruled that accepting the lawsuit meant leaving an elderly woman who undertook to sell her house on the one hand and on the other hand the plot she won would be taken from her.

Judge Arnon rejected the lawsuit and ruled that the divorcee must pay expenses in the amount of NIS 15,000, while the divorcee's appeal to the Nazareth District Court was also unsuccessful.

The composition of the Vice President, Justice Asher Cola, and Justices Danny Sarfati and Renana Galpaz Mokdi, ruled yesterday (13.6) that the appeal should be dismissed based on the materials submitted to the Family Court.

This, without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to make his claims.

The district court ruled that the divorcee must pay an additional NIS 15,000 for legal expenses.

• Real Estate

• In the country

Tags

• court

• Real Estate