Haifa District Court Rules in Long-Running Family Property Dispute
The Haifa District Court rejected an appeal over a disputed duplex, ruling that while the transfer deed date was wrong, the signature was authentic.
A long-standing family dispute over a duplex in Haifa has concluded at the Haifa District Court, which rejected an appeal filed by a brother claiming his share of the property was stolen through a forged signature. The court ruled that although the date on the transfer deed was incorrect, the signature itself was authentic, having been signed nine years prior.
The case dates back to the late 1980s, when a family construction company in Haifa built a project comprising 24 apartments. Two units, including a top-floor duplex, were registered in equal shares under the names of the father and two brothers. In 1994, the brothers experienced a falling out and signed a separation agreement. According to the brother who currently retains possession of the duplex, they agreed that both apartments would be transferred to him in exchange for other business assets.
The Legal Battle Over Property Rights
For decades, the property registration in the Land Registry (Tabu) was delayed due to an existing mortgage and the fact that the building was only officially registered as a condominium in 2009. In 2021, the second brother discovered that his share had been transferred to his sibling via a gift deed dated October 14, 2018, allegedly signed in front of a lawyer on a day when he was not even in the country.
The District Court judges—Sari Jiyusi, Ofra Atias, and Nitzan Silman—acknowledged that the date on the deed was erroneous. Testimony revealed that the appellant had actually signed the document in 2009 while incarcerated, while his brother signed in 2018 after the mortgage was settled. The attorney handling the registration explained that he had mistakenly checked the box for a joint signature, making it appear as though both men stood before him simultaneously.
The judges described the incident as a severe technical fault and problematic conduct by the lawyer, noting that had the true date been recorded, the Land Registry would have rejected the deed under regulations prohibiting the use of signatures older than three years.
Court Ruling and Bankruptcy Disclosures
Despite the procedural flaw, the court emphasized that the appellant failed to prove anyone attempted to defraud him. The handwriting expert appointed by the Family Court confirmed the authenticity of the signatures, and the judges pointed out that during past bankruptcy proceedings, the appellant had declared possessing only a 25,000 NIS provident fund and a 2,400 NIS old-age pension, failing to list any claim to the Haifa property.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay 15,000 NIS in legal expenses to his brother. The judges noted that the appellant has engaged in a widespread campaign of litigation against his family member, constituting an abuse of judicial process, though they indicated he might still retain a civil claim against the attorney responsible for the registration error.
