Jerusalem Court Cancels 100,000 Shekel Property Tax Debt Against Uninvolved Heir
In a notable ruling, Judge Nail Mahna of the Jerusalem Small Claims Court invalidated a property tax debt of approximately 100,000 shekels that the Jerusalem Municipality sought to impose on a citizen who never held the commercial property in question. The case concerned a commercial property on Al Wad Street in Jerusalem, leased under protected tenancy since 1988. After the original tenant's death, his son continued operating a fabric store there without notifying the municipality of the change in occupancy.
When the municipality became aware of the situation in May 2019, it chose to pursue payment from one of dozens of heirs who had no practical connection to the property, rather than targeting the actual occupants. After the heir did not respond promptly, the municipality retroactively registered him as the tenant dating back to 1988, over three decades earlier.
The municipality argued it was entitled to do so under the Municipalities Ordinance due to lack of notification about the change in tenants. However, the defendant claimed he never set foot in the property and accused the municipality of gross negligence, significant delay, and bad faith collection practices. Judge Mahna sided with the defendant, condemning the municipality's conduct as "deliberate turning of a blind eye and abusive misuse of statutory power."
The ruling emphasized that the municipality delayed for many years and attempted to shift old debts onto an uninformed heir simply because it failed to collect from the actual tenants. The judge described the attempt as "draconian and unfair," ordering the municipality to cancel the debt, dismiss the claim entirely, and pay the defendant 15,000 shekels in legal fees. This judgment sets a significant precedent against retroactive property tax collection from non-occupying heirs and underscores the obligation of local authorities to act in good faith and pursue debts from actual occupants in a timely manner. The Jerusalem Municipality has not yet responded to the ruling.
