The Rishon LeZion municipality caused its omissions to waste precious judicial time, forcing a resident who accumulated a municipal tax debt to deal with multiple proceedings that should not have taken place at all. This was recently determined by the Insolvency Registrar of the Tel Aviv Execution Office, Yaniv Dayan, and approved an arrangement to reduce the total debts from NIS 130,25 to NIS 10,000. The Registrar ordered the municipality to pay compensation of NIS 7,000 to cover the debtor's legal expenses and another NIS <>,<> to the state treasury.
This is a debtor against whom a number of execution cases have been conducted by various creditors, including the Rishon LeZion Municipality for a municipal tax debt. The total debt stood at NIS 130,2021, the debtor, who is now a single father and is raising two minors alone from his wife, who left him at the end of 3. It also emerges that the individual is financially supported by his family due to his situation, and lives in rent paid by his father in a 2013-room apartment. He described in his entanglement affidavit that in 2017 he opened an unsuccessful business, and due to his financial collapse and collection proceedings against him, he has been working in odd jobs repairing and renovating without a paycheck since <>.
The debtor appeared at the debt settlement meeting that was held, while the winners of the case, including the municipality as the main winner of the case, did not appear. During the discussion during the meeting, the debtor raised a settlement proposal. Despite this, the municipality did not address the proposal at all and did not submit its position by the time of the creditors' meeting.
Execution Office in Tel Aviv, photo: Yehoshua Yosef
At the creditors' meeting, the municipality opposed the proposal. According to her, although this is not a new debt, in her opinion it is sufficient that the file dates back to 2005 and no money was paid on account of the debt for a long time (20 years), despite the collection actions taken. On the other hand, the debtor claimed to have paid NIS 300 over several years. He added that the debt was created in 2000 when he was a lone soldier, and that the debt was created together with his roommates, but he was left to pay the debt alone.
The debtor improved his offer of settlement, so that it would amount to two-thirds of the amount of the debt at source. Following his proposal, the municipality announced that it was rejecting the improved proposal, without explaining or clarifying the reasons for its objection, and settled for a laconic statement only.
As part of his decision, the Registrar examined the debt erasure procedure according to which the municipality operates, and emphasized that: "It is appropriate (and perhaps even obligatory, in accordance with the broad anchoring of the duty of reasoning in case law and law on administrative bodies as stated above), that the Ministry of Interior reexamine the adequacy of the "debt erasure procedure" in its current form."
The Registrar also listed the relevant reasons that the municipality should have considered, including the payment of most of the individual principal debt that has so far paid a total of NIS 21,25 in the file, when the original debt was NIS <>,<>, the individual's personal circumstances and financial situation.
The Registrar further noted that "this is a debtor from a precarious family and economic background, raising two children alone, and due to these restrictions it is not possible for the individual to earn an orderly living, as a result he even finds it difficult to provide for his children's needs properly and depends almost entirely on financial support from his family members.
The Registrar also noted that the debts are old and most of the remaining debt comes from interest. Only about 11 years after the case was opened, did the municipality file a request for restrictions on the individual, for registration of movable attachment and for information orders. From then until 2022, the municipality took no action.
In conclusion, the Registrar stated in his decision: "This inaction is in fact a central element in the continuation of the process for so many years, and in the accumulation of high interest rates on the debt respectively. bad faith and dragging the process beyond necessity, as well as the lack of reasoning and basing the decision in accordance with the provisions of the law."
"The winner repeatedly failed to meet her obligations in the proceeding, did not appear at the hearings as required and did not submit documentation as required, even after in accordance with her requests she was given several extensions in order to meet her obligations, and yet she did not cease her failures and unnecessarily extended the process. The municipality caused its failures to waste precious judicial time and forced the individual to deal with multiple proceedings that should not have taken place at all."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us