Legal Review: Compensation for Alienation, Land Disputes, and Eviction of Relatives
The court ordered a woman to pay 180,000 shekels for alienating her children from their father. Also in this review: a ruling on a lawsuit against a developer over misleading land information and a verdict on evicting a brother from an apartment.
About the Section
This section collects interesting court rulings published recently. We select rulings in key economic areas from which one can learn something principled. For each ruling, we provide a summary and the meaning of the decision. The case number allows those interested to read the original. You are welcome to send us interesting court rulings to the email nitsan-s@globes.co.il
Mother to pay 180,000 shekels for parental alienation
Ruling in short: A father filed a lawsuit claiming his ex-wife incited their two children against him. The court ruled that the mother thwarted the relationship between the father and the children. The father's claim for a reduction in child support was rejected.
The Family Court in Safed ordered a mother to pay her former partner 180,000 shekels in compensation for damages due to parental alienation. The couple divorced in 2014, leading to years of legal proceedings involving police and welfare services. The Rabbinical Court had previously determined that the mother systematically prevented a healthy relationship between the children and their father.
Judge Avivit Nachmias determined that the mother acted consistently to alienate the children, consciously ignoring the damage caused to them and their relationship with the father. The compensation amount reflects the fact that the relationship between the father and the children has become forced.
Meaning of the ruling: Parental alienation may lead to the payment of compensation to the parent who suffered from the alienation.
Case number: 9398-05-24, 9491-05-24
Company to compensate buyers for false information about land
Ruling in short: The court ruled that sellers of agricultural land in Pardes Hanna-Karkur misled buyers by claiming there was an approved master plan for housing, even though no such approval existed.
11 buyers filed a lawsuit against the "Sia Nihul Project" group and its officials, claiming they were misled into buying land with the promise of high chances for residential rezoning. Judge Yehoshua Gaifman of the Tel Aviv District Court partially accepted the lawsuit, ordering the company and two of its managers to return approximately 1.4 million shekels (about 2.1 million with indexation) to the buyers.
Meaning of the ruling: A real estate seller must present all material information regarding the sale before signing.
Case number: 38985-05-20
Eviction of a brother from an apartment: Court rules for the owner
Ruling in short: The court ordered the eviction of a man from his brother's apartment after it was determined that the tenant-brother failed to pay rent and did not vacate the property upon the contract's expiration.
The plaintiff, the registered owner of the apartment in the land registry (Tabu), turned to the Magistrate's Court. The defendant claimed the lease was "fictitious" and that the rights to the apartment belonged to their late mother. Judge Moshe Braun rejected these claims, stating that the Tabu registration is decisive evidence of ownership and that oral promises without written documentation do not constitute a defense against an eviction lawsuit.
Meaning of the ruling: Claims regarding real estate rights must be in writing; oral claims do not constitute a defense.
Case number: 64092-10-25
