21 years of life together prevailed over the will: the partner won half the apartment
The court allowed Bank Hapoalim to refuse to accept millions of shekels returned by the police into a citizen's account, even though his criminal case was closed. Nes Li Hofim company was ordered to pay about half a million shekels after canceling a 25-year lease agreement for a commercial complex due to dampness. And the partner of a deceased woman was recognized as the owner of half the apartment, despite her having bequeathed it to her son. 3 court rulings in a week.
About the section
This section collects interesting court rulings published recently on a weekly basis. We select rulings in the core economic areas from which one can learn something principled or which can serve our readers in their business. For each ruling, we provide a summary as well as the meaning of the verdict. The case number published will allow those who wish to delve deeper to read the original. You are welcome to send us interesting rulings to the email nitsan-s@globes.co.il
The partner defeated the inheriting son - and received half of the deceased's apartment
Ruling in brief: A woman who lived for 21 years in her apartment with her partner bequeathed the apartment to her only son. However, the Magistrate's Court in Ashdod ruled that half of the apartment belongs to the partner.
A man whose partner passed away in 2019 filed a lawsuit in the Family Court against her son, requesting to declare that he is the owner of half the apartment in which they lived. The lawsuit was filed after the woman bequeathed the apartment to her son, and it was registered in his name.
The man and the deceased lived in her apartment for 21 years, until her death, after meeting as divorcees who each had a child. In his lawsuit, the man claimed that they were common-law spouses and that the presumption of partnership applied to them, granting him half of the rights accumulated during their life together - including the apartment. According to him, although the deceased purchased the apartment before they met, the mortgage payments were paid throughout their 22 years of life together, and he even participated in a renovation costing 200,000 shekels.
On the other hand, the son claimed that the decision to bequeath the apartment to him indicates a lack of intent for partnership. He also claimed that the two were not partners at all but maintained only friendly relations and lived in separate rooms, after their acquaintance began when the man rented a room from his mother.
Judge Ofra Guy, from the Magistrate's Court in Ashdod, ruled that the partner is entitled to half the apartment. It was determined that although at the beginning of their acquaintance the man lived in the apartment as a tenant, over the years his status changed, and in 2008 the two stopped signing lease agreements. The fact that the son allowed him to continue living in the apartment after the deceased's death, according to a lease agreement without cost, strengthened the conclusion that his status was not that of an ordinary tenant.
The judge was convinced that the two were common-law spouses for at least 15 years, based on joint trips abroad, family events, and the inscription "my wife" on the deceased's tombstone. In addition, it was determined that the partner's funds financed the mortgage, the renovation, and household expenses. Therefore, it was ruled that he is entitled to half the rights to the apartment, and the son was ordered to pay 40,000 shekels in legal expenses.
Meaning of the ruling: It is necessary to prove the parties' intent for partnership in an asset purchased before life together. Managing a joint account from which the mortgage is paid constitutes evidence of this.
Case number: 5919-11-22
Canceled lease due to dampness - and will pay the owner of the Crowne Plaza hotel about half a million shekels
Ruling in brief: The District Court in Tel Aviv rejected a 19 million shekel lawsuit by Nes Li Hofim company against the owner of the Crowne Plaza hotel in Eilat due to dampness.
The District Court in Tel Aviv recently rejected a lawsuit filed by the company Nes Li Hofim, which rented the commercial complex at the Crowne Plaza hotel in Eilat, against Epidor, the owner of the hotel. In the ruling given, it was determined that the plaintiff Nes Li Hofim will compensate Epidor about 584,000 shekels after it canceled the lease agreement at the place.
The case began in 2013, when the plaintiff rented a complex with an area of 913 square meters on the promenade in Eilat for a period of 25 years, with the goal of establishing about 12 shops in it. Two years later, the plaintiff canceled the agreement claiming serious dampness defects, and returned the area to Epidor unilaterally. Consequently, the lessor filed a lawsuit for 1.6 million shekels claiming that the cancellation was done illegally, and demanded payment of the rent.
In response, Nes Li Hofim filed a counterclaim for about 18.6 million shekels, claiming that the defects prevented the establishment of the project and caused it loss of profits.
Judge Yehoshua Gaifman ruled that the notice of cancellation of the lease agreement by Nes Li Hofim was illegal. The only ground for cancellation was the dampness problem that was not solved, but it was determined that it was localized, at a low level, and could be repaired within just a few days.
In the ruling, Judge Gaifman noted that "the matter of dampness, under the special circumstances proven, was not a justified ground for canceling the lease contract of the commercial area that was signed for a period of about 25 years".
Judge Gaifman adopted the expert opinion on behalf of the court, according to which the defects did not prevent the operation of the shops, and noted that the units were rented to other tenants even after the cancellation of the agreement. It was also determined by him that Nes Li Hofim should have allowed Epidor to repair the dampness centers, but it did not allow the waterproofing experts invited to perform the work.
Meaning of the ruling: The ruling clarifies that notice of contract cancellation after the infringer offered to repair the breach may amount to bad faith in exercising the right of cancellation.
Case number: 32371-06-16
The bank refused to accept 3.4 million shekels released by the police - what did the court rule?
Ruling in brief: The Magistrate's Court in Nazareth ruled that a bank is allowed to refuse to accept funds seized by the police even though the criminal case was closed - this is due to fear of money laundering.
The Magistrate's Court in Nof Hagalil-Nazareth rejected a request to compel Bank Hapoalim to accept about 3.4 million shekels in cash into a citizen's account. The funds were confiscated from the home of a former check discounting business manager in September 2023 during a criminal investigation, and were transferred to the bank after the case was closed without indictment. The bank refused to approve the deposit claiming that the client did not provide satisfactory explanations and documents for the source of the money, and due to gaps in reports that indicated a lack of economic logic in keeping the cash at home.
The bank agreed to accept only about one million shekels, an amount corresponding to specific cash withdrawals that the client made from the business close to the time of the police seizure. The client, who was represented by Adv. Sohir Dahduli, turned to the court with a request for an urgent mandatory order against the bank. The applicant claimed that the source of the funds is legal and legitimate cash withdrawals he made from his business account. He also claimed that the police and the prosecution examined the source of the funds, were convinced of their legality, and closed the investigation file. In his position, the bank's refusal to accept the funds "constitutes an illegal violation of his property right, bad faith, and breach of the contract between them".
Bank Hapoalim, which was represented in the proceeding by attorneys Meir Lefler and Yonatan Galanti, claimed that the bank has a public duty to prevent money laundering. The court ruled that the bank's decision was proportionate and reasonable, and Judge Ofer Haim Sorek ruled for the first time that closing an investigation file and returning funds by criminal enforcement authorities do not constitute an "automatic clearance" for the funds in the eyes of the banking system.
Meaning of the ruling: A bank is allowed to refuse to deposit suspicious funds - even if it concerns funds of a person released from police investigation and the criminal case was closed without indictment.
Case number: 68511-06-26
