Sellers Must Pay Buyers $35,000 After Illegally Occupying Home for Over a Year

A court in Hadera has ordered sellers to pay buyers 136,220 shekels (approximately $35,000 USD) plus 18,000 shekels in legal costs after the sellers illegally occupied the home they sold for 376 days past the agreed-upon handover date. The buyers had completed their payment in July 2024, but were unable to take possession of the keys until August 2025.

The sellers claimed they were owed compensation for delayed payments by the buyers, justifying their continued occupancy. However, the court found that both parties had breached the contract. The contract, signed on July 2, 2023, stipulated a payment schedule and a penalty of 1,000 shekels per day for delays in payment or handover, with an additional agreed-upon penalty of 495,000 shekels for a fundamental breach.

The buyers, a couple residing in France, argued that delays in their payments were due to the "Swords of Iron" war and their French bank's refusal to finance a purchase in Israel, citing a contract clause that exempted delays caused by such circumstances. The court, however, ruled that the buyers had delayed their loan application, and their reliance on the exemption clause was "a bad-faith attempt to cover up the delay they themselves largely created."

Despite finding the buyers in breach for delayed payments, the court determined that the sellers' refusal to vacate the property constituted an unlawful "self-help" measure, as agreed-upon penalties are separate from the contract's purchase price. The buyers were awarded 320,000 shekels for 320 days of delay, 495,000 shekels in agreed-upon damages, and 43,220 shekels for unfulfilled repair commitments by the sellers.

The court also addressed claims of unpermitted construction by the sellers. While the buyers alleged significant unpermitted construction, the court noted that the contract included a clause acknowledging the buyer's awareness of unpermitted additions and their purchase of the property "as is." The contract had already accounted for a price reduction related to this issue, and the court deemed further claims by the buyers as a "mistake in the value of the transaction."