Rare Interim Order: Court Orders 90-Year-Olds Evicted for Urban Renewal Project
The Jerusalem District Court ruled today, Thursday, that a homeowner and his 90-year-old parents, who live in the apartment and hold a cautionary note on it, must sign an eviction and redevelopment agreement they oppose and will be removed from the home. The decision was issued unusually as interim relief, after 180 apartment owners signed an agreement with the developer and the defendants were left as the last holdouts.
The case concerns a large-scale eviction and redevelopment project on Shualei Shimshon and Yehuda HaMaccabi streets in Beit Shemesh, comprising 181 units across 8 buildings and a commercial area. The project site is near the place where an Iranian missile fell in Beit Shemesh, an incident in which nine people were killed. All rights holders except the defendants, the apartment owner and his parents, signed an agreement with the development company O.T. HaChavera LeHitchadshut Ironit LeYisrael (Nofei Beit Shemesh).
Under the plan, the old buildings are to be evacuated and demolished, and 1,195 housing units, public buildings, offices, a country club and more will be built in their place. As part of the agreement, the rights holders are to receive upgraded new apartments, including at least 25% additional area, a protected room, covered parking, a storage room and a sun balcony of no less than 10 square meters.
Eight of the rights holders, represented by attorneys Raz Mangel and Roy Ben Ozer of the law firm Raz Mangel, argued that the apartment owner had no reasonable grounds for refusing. The apartment owner received the rights to the apartment from his parents, who transferred them to him after signing the agreement with the developer. In 2016 they asked to cancel their signature, and it was canceled.
The plaintiffs argued that the resident's refusal exposes them to the risk of bodily injury and property damage in the event of a missile attack, as well as the risk of building collapse in the event of an earthquake. "These things are reflected even more strongly these days, as the State of Israel is waging war on a number of fronts and is under unprecedented missile and UAV attacks across an enormous number of arenas, including, regrettably, casualties to body, mind and property."
The apartment owner claimed special personal circumstances involving his parents. They are elderly Holocaust survivors over the age of 90, who oppose leaving their home for alternative housing because of their medical condition. Another claim he raised concerns the developer's lack of adequate guarantees to provide an independent tax guarantee, exposing him to liability for hundreds of thousands of shekels in taxes.
Prioritizing the public interest, Judge Mordechai Burstein ruled that "delaying the project will cause harm to other residents living in old buildings without a protected room, at a time when the missile threat has not yet disappeared from the world." It was determined that the parents are indeed elderly and live in the apartment, but the law defines who is considered elderly for this purpose, and the parents are not the owners of the apartment but rather hold a cautionary note. Therefore, the provision in the law regarding elderly residents, which grants additional compensation, does not apply.
Because this was a request for interim relief, the judge examined the chances of the claim and the balance of convenience. "The scale clearly tips in favor of the plaintiffs. The economic damage that will be caused to the plaintiffs is dozens of times greater than the damage that will be caused to the defendants," it was determined.
The apartment owner claimed exposure to taxes amounting to hundreds of thousands of shekels. It was determined that this damage is not comparable to the irreversible damage of tens of millions of shekels that would be caused to the plaintiffs by delaying implementation of the project. It was further determined that since the parents do not oppose alternative housing, this does not change the conclusion. "The harm to the public interest supporting the advancement of the project also justifies, in the circumstances of the case, giving the plaintiffs priority in everything related to the balance of convenience."
The court also found it clear that the apartment owner and his parents would not be able to compensate the plaintiffs for their damages, and because all the project residents had signed agreements, there is reason to grant interim relief. "Considering the high chances of the claim, the considerations of the balance of convenience that clearly favor the plaintiffs, and the fact that failure to grant relief is expected to cause significant harm to many parties, there is room to issue the temporary mandatory injunction as requested, even though there is identity between the interim relief and the main relief."
The apartment owner and his parents were ordered to sign, within 10 days from the date the plaintiffs deposit a guarantee, an eviction and redevelopment agreement with the developer. If they do not sign, the residents' attorney will be authorized to sign on their behalf.
