Attorneys Daniel Friedenberg and Ohad Hoffman are founding partners in the law firm Hoffman & Friedenberg, which specializes in family and inheritance matters.
A recent ruling by the Central District Court deals with the matter of the “authority” in real estate – the only right in real estate that is not protected under the legal obligation according to which any real estate transaction will be carried out through a written agreement. The authority for the use of real estate can sometimes be considered a non-dwelling authority – in which case it cannot be easily revoked even if it infringes on the property rights of the property owners. The district court exceptionally ordered the revocation of the right to use the land.
Facts of the case: Parents transferred their rights to their son on the farm, on which the wide and well-kept house of his brother – their other child – was also built many years ago. In the wake of a dispute that broke out between them, the new rights holder petitioned the court to remove the hand of the brother who built the house, who claimed that the permission he received to build and live in the farm was unoccupied and hence – in his view – he uses the property legally It was built many years before his brother received the rights from the parents, and that his residence on the farm does not interfere at all with his brother who lives on the adjacent farm in the same moshav.
The decision: Because the right was given by the parents more than 40 years ago during which the son renovated the house he built, and because even after the relationship with the parents knew more slopes and elevators they still did not demand him to vacate, the court rules that it is a non-apartment right, and therefore – she Binding also the brother who later became the owner of the property.
However, in this case, the court ruled that even though the right is non-apartment, the eviction of the licensee must be ordered because of the huge dispute between him and his brother with the rights – a dispute that even included a violent brawl that required the two brothers medical treatment and was called an alienated The inability to live in one subordination led the court to revoke the right granted to the son, even though it was determined to be non-dwelling, subject to the payment of compensation that would adorn the construction and investments on his part over the many years.
the meaning: The right to use the land is – in most cases – the right of the apartment that can be revoked under the general contract law. Although this is a rare option, a right to use real estate can be classified as a permanent and non-apartment right, in which case the court has the power to order its revocation provided that it is indeed an extreme and exceptional case, and while providing adequate compensation to suit the concrete circumstances.
Failure to comply with the requirement of the law, which requires that real estate transactions be made only in writing, may lead to disputes that are decided in court according to the law and legal rules. When the right of ownership conflicts with the right of use, even if the right of use has been classified as non-dwelling, the court can still order its revocation in exceptional cases and subject to adequate compensation that is not necessarily merely monetary relief.
Page 9507-10-21.