Jerusalem Court Rules Against Resident Who Annexed Shared Building Spaces
Translated & summarized from Kikar HaShabbat by baba
The Jerusalem District Court rejected an appeal by a resident who had annexed shared building spaces, including a shelter and garden, to her apartment. The court upheld an eviction order and fined the resident 29,000 shekels. The ruling affirmed that long-term use of common property does not create ownership rights without explicit consent from all residents.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Jerusalem court upheld eviction of resident who annexed shared building spaces to her apartment.
- The annexed areas included a shelter, garden, courtyard, and parking, expanding her property tax size to 165 sqm.
- The court ruled that passive neighbors' silence does not create property rights for exclusive use.
- The resident was ordered to pay 29,000 shekels in legal costs.
- The ruling reinforces that explicit consent is needed to alter shared property.
The Jerusalem District Court has rejected an appeal by a ground-floor apartment owner in the Beit Vagan neighborhood, upholding a previous ruling that she and her family illegally annexed extensive shared spaces belonging to all building residents. Judge Tamar Bar Asher upheld a previous eviction order and ordered the appellant to pay 29,000 shekels in legal costs.
The dispute began in 2020 when Feiga Perlov Knovelsky, a first-floor resident, sued Avigail Esther Anabi and her family for occupying shared areas. Knovelsky claimed that she and other residents were denied access to these spaces.
During the legal proceedings, it was revealed that the annexed areas included a 20-square-meter shared shelter converted into a private office, a heating room and water pit transformed into a two-room living unit with a kitchen and bathroom, a 260-square-meter garden, a 70-square-meter courtyard, and a three-car parking space. While Anabi's registered apartment size was only 37 square meters, her property tax assessment had grown to 165 square meters since 2019.
Anabi had argued that her family's long-term use of the spaces, without objection, implied consent, and that they had invested significantly in improving the areas. However, Judge Bar Asher found no evidence of permission for exclusive use of the common property. She stated that the neighbors' passive stance could not create property rights and that the family had only themselves to blame for their investments, as even usage rights are generally revocable.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the eviction order and prohibition on further alterations to shared property in full effect. The ruling aligns with previous legal decisions emphasizing that long-term use of common property does not grant ownership rights and that explicit consent from all property owners is required for any changes to shared spaces.