Court Orders Eviction of Family Living Illegally on Ramat Hasharon Land

A family that had occupied state-owned land in Ramat Hasharon for over a decade has been ordered to vacate the premises by the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court. The Israel Land Authority (ILA) sued the father and his three children, who claimed the 30-dunam (approximately 7.4 acres) plot was allocated to them by the Ramat Hasharon municipality as part of a rehabilitation program for ex-convicts. The family alleged the father had developed the land and invested in it, thus acquiring vested rights, and that the ILA was aware of their presence for years.

However, the court found no proof that the municipality had granted the family any rights to the land. Judge Edna Yossef-Kozin ruled that the father had illegally occupied the land, though the exact start date of the occupation, whether 2004 or 2013, remained undetermined. The court also stated that prolonged occupation of public land, even with the state's knowledge, does not grant rights to continue holding it once an eviction notice is issued. The family was ordered to leave within 45 days and pay NIS 25,000 in legal costs.

The ruling emphasizes that extended possession of state land, even with official awareness, does not establish a right to remain after an eviction demand. In a separate case, the Petah Tikva Family Court ruled that two sisters are entitled to 13% of their late father's house, which is also partially owned by their half-brother. The court determined that the father held 40% of the property, based on an initial purchase agreement, and this share will be inherited by his three children equally. The brother and his wife were ordered to pay NIS 55,000 in legal costs.

Additionally, the Rishon Lezion Family Court rejected a wife's request for an unequal division of pension funds after an 11-year marriage. She sought 60% of the pension, citing alleged financial abuse and significant earning disparities. The court upheld the standard equal division of marital assets, stating that the wife failed to prove financial abuse with external evidence and that the earning gap did not warrant an unequal distribution of pension savings. The wife was ordered to pay NIS 10,000 in legal costs.