A protracted family dispute over a duplex in Haifa has reached its conclusion in the Haifa District Court, which upheld a Family Court ruling and dismissed an appeal filed by one of the brothers. The dispute concerned a property registered in the names of the father and his two sons, with one brother alleging that half the apartment was transferred to his sibling through a forged deed. According to the lawsuit, the deed was dated October 14, 2018—a time when the plaintiff was not even in Israel.
Judges Sari Jiosi, Ofra Attias, and Nitzan Silman acknowledged that an error had been made regarding the date on the document, but established that the signature on the deed was authentic and had actually been signed in 2009. It emerged that the attorney responsible for registering the property in the Land Registry made a technical error by checking a box indicating a joint signature, creating a false impression regarding the date the parties appeared before him. The judges sharply criticized the attorney’s conduct, noting it was a grave error that could have prevented the registration entirely, as Land Registry regulations do not allow the use of signatures verified long ago without updating. However, the court ruled that there was no forgery, as the plaintiff had signed the document voluntarily years earlier.
A key factor in the judges' decision was the plaintiff’s conduct during his previous bankruptcy proceedings. During those proceedings, the plaintiff failed to declare his rights in the property, arguing that mortgaged assets did not count as his personal property. The court determined that a person who does not report an asset to the bankruptcy trustee cannot later claim ownership. The judges further noted that this was another chapter in a long, tedious series of legal proceedings initiated by the brother against his sibling, and that filing the claim in this format constituted an abuse of judicial process.
Regarding tax implications, the judges noted that the apartment was registered as a gift in the Land Registry, while it was effectively transferred as part of a broader separation agreement between the brothers. Since there is a significant tax difference between a transfer without consideration and a transfer under a property distribution agreement, the court ordered the ruling to be forwarded to real estate tax authorities for review. The plaintiff was ordered to pay 15,000 shekels in legal costs. The judges clarified that the matter concerning the apartment is now closed, but noted that the plaintiff retains the right to explore separate legal actions against the attorney for his professional conduct.