Israeli Supreme Court Rules Father Cannot Revoke Land Sale Made by Son Despite Financing Purchase

A family dispute over a piece of land has reached the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled that a father who financed the purchase of a 1,500-square-meter plot and registered it in his son's name cannot cancel the son's sale of the land to a third party for 200,000 shekels. The father had fully funded and executed the purchase but officially recorded ownership under his son's name at the Land Registry. When the son later sold the land, the father filed a lawsuit demanding the cancellation of the sale agreement and the warning note registered in favor of the buyer, claiming he was the true owner and that the registration was only for "trust" purposes, denying his son the right to sell.

The father argued that the transaction was not a gift but intended to give his children a "good feeling." He also pointed to his financial support of all his children and previous land transactions he conducted. The son, represented by attorney Azmi Younes Nasar, maintained it was a gift, while the buyer, represented by attorney Marwa Halo Ali, asserted he purchased the land in good faith and for fair consideration.

The Supreme Court rejected the father's appeal, distinguishing between ordinary transactions and those between parents and children. The court held that in parent-child relationships, the legal presumption is that the parent intended to gift the property outright, reversing the usual trust presumption. The burden of proof lies heavily on the parent to show otherwise, especially when the property is registered in the child's name. The court found the father failed to meet this burden, noting his extensive financial support to his children and confirming the gift intent as ruled by the district court.

Consequently, the father's claim was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay 10,000 shekels in legal costs to the son and buyer. The ruling reinforces the Land Registry's authority and legal certainty in real estate transactions, emphasizing protection for third parties acting in good faith. Attorney Marwa Halo Ali stated the decision balances internal family relations with legal certainty and public trust in property registration. The father's attorney criticized the ruling as unfair and inconsistent, highlighting unresolved questions about the valuation and treatment of the land involved.