Three Rulings: A Canceled Flight, a Land Sale, and Investments in a Jointly Owned Apartment

Co-Owners Were Permitted to Sell the Land

A couple who owned a share in a plot of land measuring about half a dunam in Givatayim sought to dissolve the co-ownership and sell the rights to the highest bidder. The remaining owners objected because the plot is included in an urban renewal plan being advanced by the municipality, and waiting for its approval could increase the property’s value. The Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court granted the claim and ordered the sale to be carried out by a court-appointed receiver.

Why Waiting for Urban Renewal Did Not Halt the Sale

Judge Guy Borer relied on the Real Estate Law, which allows every co-owner to demand dissolution of the co-ownership “at any time.” Exceptions may apply, including the existence of a restrictive agreement or lack of good faith, but the court found no such grounds in this case. The possibility of a future increase in value does not, by itself, prevent a sale; any postponement intended to advance the plan must be temporary, limited, and proportionate.

After Ten Days in Dubai, Only Part of the Expenses Was Reimbursed

A couple’s flight from Dubai to Israel, scheduled to depart on March 2, 2026, was canceled after the start of Operation “Lion’s Roar.” After returning ten days later on a foreign airline, the passengers demanded NIS 37,700 from El Al for accommodation, food, transportation, loss of income, and non-pecuniary damage. Judge Shar Sander Makover of the Bat Yam Small Claims Court ruled that they were not entitled to the compensation prescribed by law because the cancellation resulted from the war, the closure of the airspace, and circumstances beyond the carrier’s control. Under the Aviation Services Law, only expenses for the assistance services prescribed by law for the first two days could be reimbursed: El Al was ordered to pay NIS 5,677 for the hotel, food, and transportation, plus approximately NIS 900 in legal costs.

A Personal Investment Did Not Alter the Equal Division of the Apartment

After five years of marriage, the former spouses disagreed over the division of an apartment in Ashkelon worth approximately NIS 1.35 million, social and pension rights, as well as the man’s shares. He sought the return of NIS 300,000, which he claimed came from his personal funds, or alternatively a 60%-40% division of the apartment; the woman also requested an increased share because of income disparities. Judge Hila Ohayon-Glicksman of the Ashdod Family Court ordered the economic rights to be divided equally: the apartment was registered in equal shares, and the parties had not signed a marital financial agreement. It was determined that the shares would be calculated according to their net financial value on the date the relationship ended, after deduction of tax, and that half of the expected tax amount would be deposited in a trust account for three years.

Latest legal news

• Court allows parents of late Maj. Ofek Bachar to use his sperm
• High Court issues order nisi over regional radio reform
• Supreme Court decision in BSA 8455/17 addresses appeal classification