Court Rules Brother Who Held Haifa Duplex for 27 Years Can Keep It
Translated & summarized from Mako by baba
A Haifa court has ruled that a brother who has possessed a duplex apartment since 1994 can keep it, rejecting his sibling's appeal. The court found the brother's signature on the sales agreement to be authentic, though incorrectly dated to 2018 instead of 2009. The judges criticized the lawyer's handling of the document but found no proof of forgery against the brother. The court also noted the plaintiff brother's history of litigation and his prior bankruptcy declaration stating he owned no property.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- A Haifa court ruled a brother who held a duplex for 27 years can keep it, rejecting his sibling's appeal.
- The court found the brother's signature on the sales agreement authentic, though the date was incorrect.
- Judges criticized the lawyer for a serious error in dating the signature, but found no forgery.
- The plaintiff brother's prior bankruptcy declaration stated he owned no property.
- The court ordered the ruling sent to tax authorities due to unclear property transfer status.
- The brother who lost the appeal must pay 15,000 shekels in legal costs.
A Haifa court has ruled in favor of a brother who has held a duplex apartment for 27 years, rejecting an appeal by his sibling who claimed his half of the property was stolen through a forged signature. The District Court upheld a previous Family Court decision, confirming that the brother who has possessed the apartment since 1994 is its rightful owner. The dispute centered on a sales agreement where the plaintiff brother claimed his signature was dated October 14, 2018, a day he was not in the country. While the court agreed the date was incorrect, they found the signature itself to be authentic, dating it to 2009. The court determined the brother who signed in 2009 was in prison at the time, while his sibling signed in 2018 after a mortgage was settled. The judges criticized the lawyer involved for a serious error in marking the signature date, which circumvented regulations preventing the use of documents older than three years since signature validation.
According to the ruling, the plaintiff brother's claim of forgery was not proven, and the court suggested any deception was directed at the land registry (Tabu), not him. A handwriting expert appointed by the court confirmed the authenticity of the signature on the sales agreement and other documents. The court noted that the plaintiff brother had previously declared bankruptcy, listing only a small pension fund and no property, which contradicted his current claim of ownership. The judges also pointed out that the plaintiff brother had initiated numerous legal proceedings against his sibling, labeling it a "blatant misuse of legal proceedings."
Despite the ruling, the court suggested the plaintiff brother might have a claim against the lawyer for using his signature without updating the date, though this does not affect the apartment's ownership. The court also ordered the ruling to be transferred to the Israel Tax Authority, as the nature of the property transfer, whether a gift or part of a separation agreement, has tax implications.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Centre 1Other 1
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.