Real estate8/7/2026

The Supreme Court Did Not Set Aside the Judgment Concerning a Tel Aviv Apartment Transaction

The Supreme Court of Israel dismissed Talia Pevzner’s appeal in a dispute concerning the sale of rights in an apartment at 27 Frug Street in Tel Aviv. Although she was unaware of the original proceeding, the Court held that the power of attorney she had granted expressly authorized the attorney to represent her in court in matters related to the transaction.

Key facts

•Case: CA 3255/19
•Court: Supreme Court of Israel
•Judgment date: 30.5.2021
•First judgment: HP 67014-12-14 dated 17.11.2015
•District Court case: CA 14485-07-17
•Costs: ₪10,000

A Transaction That Was Not Completed

Yonatan Sheffer and Itay Optovsky undertook to sell the rights in the apartment to two groups of purchasers: 40% to the group comprising respondents 4–6, and 60% to Talia Pevzner and Michaela Caspi Pevzner. Approximately half of the consideration was not paid, the outstanding mortgage balance was not discharged, and the rights were not registered in the purchasers’ names. On 17.11.2015, the Tel Aviv District Court rescinded the agreement, ordered the cautionary notes deleted, and ordered the parties to return what had been transferred under the transaction.

Why Pevzner Sought to Set Aside the Judgment

After the first judgment was issued, it emerged that Pevzner had not known about the proceeding or its outcome. She argued that the pleadings had not been served on her and that attorney Nili Machnes had not been authorized to represent her in that proceeding. However, on 2.4.2019, the District Court denied the application to set aside the judgment, after finding that the power of attorney dated 25.8.2013 included representation in court in matters concerning the sale of the apartment.

The Supreme Court’s Position

The Court noted that a final civil judgment will be set aside only in exceptional cases, due to the principle of finality of proceedings. Pevzner’s application was filed as a separate action—that is, in the form of a “civil retrial”—but she did not allege fraud, new evidence, or other accepted grounds for this type of reconsideration. Even under the more lenient rules for setting aside a judgment given ex parte, there were no grounds for doing so: the attorney appeared in court and defended Pevzner pursuant to powers that had been expressly formulated.

The Outcome and Legal Costs

The panel of Justices Noam Sohlberg, Neal Hendel, and George Karra unanimously dismissed the appeal. The first judgment rescinding the agreement remained in force, and Pevzner was ordered to pay Sheffer and Optovsky legal costs of ₪10,000. The Supreme Court noted separately that this outcome does not prejudge any potential claims by Pevzner arising from her relationships with attorney Machnes and with Michaela.

What this means for you

A broad power of attorney for carrying out real estate actions may also include representation in court if it expressly mentions courts and the powers to appear as a plaintiff or defendant or to file pleadings. In such a case, the judgment will not necessarily be regarded as having been given in a party’s absence, even if the person granting the power of attorney was not actually aware of the proceeding. Once the judgment becomes final, it is far more difficult to have it set aside, particularly when the chosen procedure is a separate action for reconsideration.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings