Buyers Lose Lawsuit Over Land Ownership After Paying $175,000
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
Two property appraisers in Israel have lost a lawsuit against the Israel Land Authority after paying over 660,000 shekels for land rights in 2013. They claimed the payment should have secured full ownership, but the court ruled it was for enhanced building rights under a new lease. The judge dismissed their claim that the authority's silence on their initial request meant agreement, stating it was legally a refusal. The lawsuit was dismissed, though the judge suggested a potential resolution for the parties.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Two appraisers lost a lawsuit seeking land ownership after paying 660,000 shekels plus VAT.
- The payment was for enhanced building rights, not full ownership, a Haifa court ruled.
- The court found the Israel Land Authority's silence on a prior request was a refusal, not agreement.
- The plaintiffs signed a new lease contract that stipulated additional payments for exceeding building limits.
- The judge criticized the authority for not responding to a letter but dismissed the lawsuit.
- The judge suggested the authority consider allowing the plaintiffs to pay the adjusted amount.
Two Israeli property appraisers have lost a lawsuit seeking to be recognized as the full owners of a plot of land in Kiryat Tivon, after paying approximately 660,000 shekels (about $175,000) plus VAT in 2013 for enhanced building rights. The appraisers, who purchased the leasehold rights to the 2.2-dunam plot in 2009, argued that their 2013 payment should be considered a purchase of full ownership, as it matched the price for such a transaction. The land is managed by the Israel Land Authority (ILA) on behalf of the Jewish National Fund (JNF).
In 2012, before the payment, the men had written to the ILA requesting their payment be considered a purchase of ownership, but received no response, which they interpreted as agreement. When they later sought to finalize the ownership transfer in 2021, the ILA presented them with a bill for an additional payment, initially around 692,000 shekels and later adjusted to approximately 474,000 shekels after deducting the 2013 payment. The plaintiffs claimed this amounted to paying twice for the same rights and sought the return of 108,000 shekels they believed they overpaid.
Judge Reital Baum of the Haifa Magistrate's Court rejected their claim, stating that the 2013 payment was for a "change of exploitation" under a new lease agreement, not for full ownership. The judge noted that the new lease contract, which the plaintiffs signed, explicitly stated that building beyond a certain size would require additional payment. Furthermore, the judge found no evidence that the 2012 appraisal, which the plaintiffs claimed included future development rights, actually did so.
The court also ruled that the ILA's silence in response to the 2012 letter did not constitute agreement; under the law, an unresponded-to request is considered a refusal. While the judge criticized the ILA for not responding within the legal timeframe, she emphasized that the plaintiffs could have chosen not to sign the new lease if they disagreed. The lawsuit was dismissed, but the judge did not award legal costs to the ILA, suggesting the ILA consider allowing the plaintiffs to pay the adjusted amount if they confirm their intent to purchase ownership within 90 days.
