Court ruling9/27/2026

Three Decisions: A Promised Apartment, a Leak and the Forfeiture of a Guarantee

Israeli courts heard three disputes: an apartment promised orally, failure to comply with an order to repair a leak, and a security company’s bank guarantee. In the first case, a woman’s right to half of the apartment was recognized; in the second, the neighbors were ordered to pay NIS 30,000 in legal costs; and in the third, the court did not halt the forfeiture of NIS 100,000.

Key facts

•Case No. 12210-01-26 — Tel Aviv District Court
•NIS 50,000 in costs was awarded in the apartment dispute
•Case No. 29125-05-25 — Ashdod Magistrate’s Court
•NIS 30,000 in costs was awarded for failure to repair the leak
•Case No. 85207-08-26 — Haifa Magistrate’s Court
•The autonomous guarantee — NIS 100,000

Half of the Apartment by Virtue of an Oral Promise

The parents of a blind man found him a bride in Brazil; the couple married in 1990 and later lived with their two daughters in the husband’s parents’ apartment in Herzliya. After the separation, the woman sought recognition of her right to half of the rights in the apartment, which the husband’s mother subsequently bequeathed to her daughter. The Tel Aviv District Court, presided over by Judge Einat Ravid, dismissed the appeal of the former husband’s sister and upheld the finding that the apartment had been promised to the couple, among other things to persuade the woman to return to Israel. In this exceptional case, the court applied the principle of the “cry of fairness”: the woman’s substantial reliance on the promise and the family’s extreme lack of good faith allowed a departure from the written-form requirement for the transfer of real estate; the sister was ordered to pay the woman and her former husband NIS 50,000.

The Leak and the Judgment That Was Not Complied With

The Ashdod Magistrate’s Court considered the case of a couple who failed to comply with the decision of the Supervisor of Real Estate Registration and did not repair the water seepage into their neighbor’s apartment. Judge Yehuda Leiblein initiated proceedings under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, imposed a daily financial sanction, and the couple deposited NIS 20,000 with the court. Contacting the insurance company, as the court clarified, did not exempt them from their obligation to carry out the repair. After the proceedings concluded, the court ordered the couple to pay NIS 30,000 in costs, taking into account the lack of proper efforts and the failure to comply with the original decision for approximately two years.

An Autonomous Guarantee of NIS 100,000

“S.A.S.H. North and Valleys,” a company that provided security services to the Binyamina–Giv'at Ada Local Council, sought to prevent the realization of an autonomous bank guarantee totaling NIS 100,000. The council pointed to violations in the employment of workers, failure to transfer funds for social benefits, and a lack of cooperation with inspections. Haifa Magistrate’s Court Judge Sigalit Matza denied the application: the company did not prove serious fraud, special circumstances, lack of good faith, or extraneous considerations that could have justified intervention in the autonomy of the guarantee. The company’s representative stated that the claim for restitution of the funds would continue; its outcome is not stated in the source.

What this means for you

An oral promise to transfer real estate may be recognized by a court only in rare circumstances, when reliance on it is substantial and the other party’s lack of good faith is particularly severe. Failure to comply with a decision ordering the repair of a leak may lead to daily sanctions and significant legal costs, and contacting an insurer does not in itself remove the obligation to carry out the repair. A court will generally not halt the realization of an autonomous bank guarantee without evidence of serious fraud or other exceptional circumstances.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings