Court Allows Son to Rebuild Home Damaged by Iranian Missile Amid Family Dispute

A Jerusalem Family Court has overturned a restraining order that a father had obtained to prevent his son from rebuilding a home on his property, which was damaged by an Iranian missile. The father had sought the order to stop his son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter from rebuilding their 188-square-meter home, as part of a larger legal battle to have them removed from the family's agricultural holding, known as a "nahala." The son and his family, who were living in a caravan on the property that was hit, are countersuing for recognition of their rights to be registered as rights holders on the farm.

The father claimed his son had destroyed the caravan without his knowledge and was rapidly constructing a large, concrete and steel-reinforced house using state funds, without his permission. He accused them of trying to create faits accomplis during the ongoing lawsuit by exploiting the war.

The son and his family argued the father's request was made in extreme bad faith, aiming to leave them homeless. They explained their caravan was destroyed by an Iranian missile in March 2026 during the "Roaring Lion" war. The reconstruction, they stated, is funded by the Property Tax and Compensation Fund to restore the property to its pre-damage condition, based on a government engineer's assessment. They further claimed the new structure is being built on the original foundation using light construction methods, without altering the original house's footprint, and that no new permits are needed as it's a war damage restoration based on a plan the father himself had previously approved.

Judge Moshe Brown ruled that the reconstruction is intended to return the property to its previous state and that the son and his family are entitled to rebuild their missile-damaged home. He clarified that this process, governed by Property Tax regulations, aims to restore the property, not improve it beyond its condition before the damage. The judge also stated that the reconstruction would not affect the main legal dispute, which concerns the circumstances at the time the lawsuit was filed. He added that leaving the situation as is would leave the family without shelter and at risk of losing compensation.

The court canceled the restraining order, stating there was no justification for its issuance or continuation, and ordered the father to pay the son 5,000 shekels in legal costs. Attorneys for both sides issued statements. The son's attorney called the decision just and logical, while the father's attorney stated it was an interim decision on a temporary remedy that does not decide the main dispute, emphasizing his client did not oppose the rebuilding itself but rather unauthorized work on his property.