They thought it was their yard for 45 years - "Google Street View" changed everything
A family from Herzliya claimed they received the backyard in an agreed-upon division between neighbors. The Inspector of Land Registration in Netanya did not accept the story and ruled that they must dismantle a fence, paving, and a gate, and remove cameras and floodlights - within two months and at their own expense.
A condominium on Bar Kochba Street in the Neve Israel neighborhood of Herzliya, eight apartments, two floors - and one big problem in the backyard. There, according to the statement of claim, the Raibi family, owners of one of the apartments, established a kind of private kingdom: a surrounding wall, a locked gate, artificial grass, a shed, a gas grill, an outdoor refrigerator, and finally also cameras and floodlights on the outer wall. The neighbor from the second floor, owner of an apartment on the same floor, did not agree to this - and filed a claim with the Inspector of Land Registration for eviction.
The procedure, as it turns out from the verdict, was not short at all: it lasted from 2022 until last month, with delays due to the Iron Swords war, Operation Glorious Lion, and an urgent medical condition of the plaintiff. At the end of the road, the Inspector of Land Registration in Netanya, Erez Steinberg, accepted the claim almost in its entirety.
The basis of the Raibi family's defense was a historical claim: according to them, about 45 years ago, the owners of the apartments on the top floor divided the yards among themselves, with the Raibi family being allocated the backyard, while the plaintiff - who arrived at the apartment only in 1987 - was allocated a smaller yard. According to this version, the plaintiff simply joined an existing situation and took it for granted. However, the claims cracked.
Photos from 2011 were attached to the file, including shots from Google Street View, which show an almost completely open yard, with low grass and no sign of division, paving, artificial grass, or any equipment. The inspector wrote in his verdict that the photos do not support the defendant's claim at all, and added that only in 2018 did the defendant and her son, Mr. Shaked Raibi, begin to carry out more massive actions in the yard, which significantly changed the situation that had prevailed in the area until then. That is, it is not an ancient division, but a relatively fresh takeover, about eight years old.
Testimony from another tenant in the building, David Katan, also did not help the family's version. When asked when exactly the tenants divided the yards among themselves, he simply replied: "There was nothing." A short answer, but one that cast real doubt on the entire claim of the existence of a tenants' meeting or a joint decision.
The family also presented a protocol of a tenants' meeting from 2021, in which they were allegedly granted the right of exclusive use of the yard. The problem: only six out of the eight apartment owners participated in the meeting, without detailing who they were. The inspector mentioned in the verdict that according to case law, in order to attach part of the common property to a specific apartment - even temporarily - the consent of all apartment owners is required, not just most of them. There is and cannot be a dispute that the document presented does not include the consent of all apartment owners, it was determined.
Another piece of evidence that worked against the family was a WhatsApp message that the plaintiff received from the defendant's son back in 2020, in which he gives her a key to the yard and calls it, in his words, a "common garden." The inspector noted that this message negates the claim for consent to exclusive use.
The inspector accepted the claim almost in its entirety, and ordered the defendant to vacate the yard, dismantle the artificial grass and paving, demolish the wall that surrounded the area and return it to a low fence as it was, remove the gates and the floodlights, and also take down all the cameras she installed - all within 60 days and at her own expense. The plaintiff did not come out completely clean either: the inspector took into account in the ruling on expenses that she herself also placed locked iron gates at the entrance to the common yard (which were eventually removed), and also installed her own cameras on the common property. In the end, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff only 4,000 shekels for legal fees and expenses - a relatively modest sum, given the conduct of the proceedings by both parties.
