Court Cancels Land Sale Based on Oral Agreement Among Siblings

A family dispute over land, initially gifted by a father to his 11 sons in 1991, has been resolved by an Israeli court, which canceled a land sale based on an unwritten agreement.

Around 2013, the siblings reportedly reached a verbal agreement: four brothers would receive the sole buildable plot for their homes and, in return, would relinquish their claims to the agricultural plots to the other seven brothers. The four brothers subsequently built their homes.

In mid-2021, disputes arose. One of the four brothers sold his remaining rights in an agricultural plot to an individual whose factory bordered the land. The buyer registered a caution note and began using the area. The other ten siblings sued to invalidate the sale.

While Israeli property law typically requires written agreements, the court invoked the "cry of justice" exception. The selling brother's testimony shifted, initially claiming the agreement was "imaginary" and later admitting to a different oral agreement. The father testified that he had stipulated that those receiving the buildable land would receive no other land. The judge found the seller's inconsistent testimony significantly undermined his credibility and ruled that allowing him to disavow the agreement after his siblings relied on it would be grossly unfair.

The court also questioned the buyer's good faith. The seller initially refused to disclose the payment, eventually stating 100,000 shekels were transferred via bank and the rest in cash. The judge noted that cash payments are not illegal but, combined with the buyer's prior acquaintance with the seller, family ties, and the specific selection of the plot adjacent to his factory without consulting other co-owners, cast doubt on his good faith. The sale was never registered with the Land Registry.

While the sale was voided and the caution note ordered removed, the court denied the plaintiffs' requests to demolish structures or charge usage fees, as the extent of construction and prior conditions were unproven. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs 40,000 shekels in legal costs.