A recent precedent ruling concerning the lives of all those involved in the purchase/sale of land (Photo: ShutterStock)
A precedent ruling was recently given in the Magistrate's Court in Rehovot - concerning the lives of all those involved in the purchase/sale of land.
The discussion dealt with the following issue: What is the jurisdiction of the improvement levy supplement, in relation to a transaction in the framework of which conditional rights were approved, which the parties to the transaction were aware of from the beginning, but the request for the rights permit itself was submitted and approved by the Planning and Construction Committee only after the transaction was completed? Who is required to pay the supplement For the improvement levy - the seller or the buyer?
What was the verdict of the Rehovot Magistrate's Court? The full story and the conclusions are in front of you:
The full story: What's the controversy about?
This is a sales transaction for NIS 21,160,000 - a lot in the "Gan Pekan" complex in Rehovot.
The plaintiff, Claude Nachmias Construction Company Ltd., is the buyer in the transaction, and the defendants are part of the sellers (Eliezer Fishman was also part of the sellers, but he was not sued in light of the insolvency proceedings against him).
The dispute between the parties revolves around the question of who is responsible for bearing the improvement levy for Construction rights granted at the buyer's request after the conclusion of the agreement, and which constituted the exercise of "conditional rights" in the IBA that took effect before the conclusion of the agreement.
"Conditional rights" - refers to the rights in the plan that require additional approval from the planning and construction committee in order to approve them, and this is different from "vested rights", which are included in the plan and the contractor has a right.
The lawsuit was filed after the District Appeals Committee for the Improvement Levy determined that the buyer (Claude Nachmias Company) should bear the improvement levy while applying the rule established by the Supreme Court, known as the rule "
What is unique about this claim?
The uniqueness of the lawsuit is the buyer's claim that despite the determination of the appeal committee and the "Alik Ron" rule, the contractual agreement between the parties regarding the division of responsibility between the seller and the buyer in carrying the improvement charge, is different and increasing.
The buyer relied, among other things, on a clause in the contract (which is a standard and accepted clause in real estate sales contracts) which states that the seller will bear the improvement levy, which will be imposed for city building plans that took effect before the date of the transaction, while the buyer will bear the improvement levy that will be imposed for city building plans that came into effect after conclusion of the transaction.
Since it is not disputed that the plans by virtue of which the construction rights were granted were valid before the conclusion of the agreement, the buyer claimed that the sellers should be obliged to pay the improvement levy also for the conditional rights in the plans.
More in Walla!
Beat the pain without fear: B-Cure laser in an unprecedented experience sale
Served on behalf of B Cure Laser
The precedent ruling established by the court
The court rejected the buyer's argument and determined that the issue of carrying the improvement levy is a weighty issue in the transaction, therefore precisely the fact that the agreement does not refer to the issue of exercising "conditional rights" - means that the parties did not take them into account as part of the "plans" referred to in the improvement levy clause in the sales agreement.
The court even accepted the sellers' argument that they could not include the value of the conditional rights in the determination of the contractual consideration, since they could not know the amount of the improvement levy that would be imposed as a result of the realization of the conditional rights, when they were unable to know what application for a building permit the buyer would submit, what it would include, and what would be approved In the end.
In conclusion, the precedent ruling leads to the conclusion that the clauses concerning the improvement levies in Rachel your little daughter must refer to the issue of "conditional rights" in the plans, and identify the party that will bear them before signing the agreement.
Real estate
Real estate magazine
Tags
real estate