Court Rules Apartment Belongs to Brother Who Paid for It, Not the One It Was Registered To

A Tel Aviv family court has ruled that an apartment registered in one brother's name for over 20 years actually belongs to his sibling, who paid the full purchase price of approximately 900,000 shekels, funded renovations, managed the property, and collected all rental income for decades. The court determined that the registered owner held the property in trust for his brother.

The ruling highlights the importance of evidence beyond official registration in family property disputes. While registration in the Land Registry (Tabu) carries significant weight, courts will examine factors such as who paid for the property, who used it, who received income from it, and how the parties behaved over time, especially in familial transactions that may lack formal contracts.

The plaintiff testified that he registered the apartment in his brother's name for convenience while he was abroad. He presented himself as the de facto owner by paying for the apartment, renovations, and rental management, while collecting the income. The brother who was the registered owner claimed the apartment was given to him as payment for work done in the U.S. for his sibling.

The court favored the plaintiff's version, noting the discrepancy between the registered owner's claims and his actual behavior. If the apartment had been given as payment for work, he would have been expected to benefit from it as an owner. The court also found the amount claimed for the work to be significantly less than the apartment's value, and his evidence contained contradictions.

As a result, the court declared all rights to the apartment belong to the plaintiff. The registered brother must sign the ownership transfer documents, and the plaintiff will cover the associated taxes and costs. The losing brother was also ordered to pay 50,000 shekels in legal expenses.

The article contrasts this case with others where the Tabu registration was upheld due to a lack of evidence to the contrary, such as a man who lived in an apartment registered to his brother for 18 years but failed to provide documentation to support his claim of financing the purchase. It also notes cases where registration was not the sole determinant, such as when a partner registered an apartment bought with inheritance money in their partner's name, and the court examined the source of funds and intentions. The piece concludes that while Tabu registration remains crucial, in family matters, documenting the reality behind the registration is advisable when relationships are strained.