ADVOCATE ISRAEL

Supreme Court
DNA 6715/99
To: N. President A. Barak

Petitioners: In .1 Moshe Tzitiat
.2 Saul Tzitiat
3 David Cohen
.4 Meir Tzitiat
vs
Respondent: Batya and shortness of
Petition for further discussion of his ruling, the court
Supreme CAC 8318/96 dated 21.9.99, which can be
By the Honorable Deputy President Star 'Judges: N.
D. Dorner, Y. Tirkel
Named petitioners: Mr. Noam on UNRWA not through sale. .1 Petitioners respondent are joint owners of the land it is built Mgorimven two-story house with four apartments. Petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 4 hold respondent, each apartment with four apartments in the building.
Petitioners 2 and - 3 have in common the fourth apartment. Respondent filed in the Magistrate's Court on the streets (the judge. Feinstein) a request to dismantle the sharing part, by way of listing the building in a condominium, as the provisions of Article 42 of the law of land, Instiute - 1969 ( "Land Law"). Respondents objected and asked that the sharing will Skating through the sale and distribution of revenue, as stated in Article 40 Lands Act. Rehovot Magistrate's Court accepted the respondent's request and ordered the dismantling of cooperation by way of registration as a joint plot. The District Court accepted the petitioners' appeal and made the decision of Magistrate's Court. respondent sought to appeal the ruling Dino's Magistrates Court. permission to appeal was granted.
.2 In his ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that no longer share that dissolution by way of listing common (by virtue of Article 42 of the law of land) is preferable to dissolution by way of sale under section 40 of the law.
The court stated that there is justification to apply the safeguards that apply to the distribution in the eye,
Mutatis mutandis, also to record the building of the joint.
For this purpose the court added that the court broad discretion when he came to discuss
Share the way of dismantling the building as a joint registration, and may also consider considerations
Others (beyond the considerations enumerated in Section 40 of the Law) that have to prevent the dismantling of sharing. For this purpose, the Court held that the claim of the petitioners if they would be caused "significant loss" (the language of Article 40) not proven, all hanging on outline plans that may apply to the building. In this context, the Court also relied on the ruling
Bra"a 1017/97 Ridlvic N. Modai, not yet published.
Referring to the status of petitioners 2 and - 3, the court ruled that those holding
Together in one apartment anyway, so the registration of the plot in a condominium apartment in which they are registering
Both have the name will not change anything about them.
The court added that these petitioners by the Authority to dismantle the sharing among them --
If you find it necessary to do so.
3 Most of the petitioners claim is against the assertion that the dismantling of a way of sharing
One plot in a condominium not bearing "significant loss".
They claimed that the "percentage of construction" are of economic value and the Supreme Court erred determined that
Planning permission is not present an exploited lot. More petitioners argue that the court
Supreme erred by refusing to establish that substantial rights of the construction value, were not even specific evidence on this matter. Their opinion of the petitioners, but of course is that the building rights are of value. More petitioners argue against the decision to order the joint listing, leave two of them co-owners in the same housing unit. They argue - deviation from the laws that the dismantling of a separate cost sharing would buy each of the owners. Petitioners added claim that the court did not give proper weight to her complaints about the respondent's worst intelligence Neighborhood Relations petitioners: Slshitt relationship petitioners and they have to justify the dismantling of cooperation by way of sale.

.4 After I review the ruling subject of the petition on the petition itself, I decided to postpone the
Petition for further discussion.
In fact, petitioners consistently focus on factual claims: F between about existence and building rights Olsowein respondent regarding relations with the petitioners. Such claims are not claims for further discussion, for "further discussion is appealed"
(See: DNA 3940/97 in Klein Lior, a minor v. Dr. Melina Kanner, unpublished).
Also the additional claim of the petitioners, against the record as a joint while skating title two of them together in one apartment owner is growing cause for the existence of further discussion. The court reasoned that the statement regarding the circumstances of the case here - given that these petitioners have already co-housing apartment. Even in this specific statement Ngzor some general principle (I can not find a place be required for this purpose), not to say that the very existence of such statement establishes, casually, the existence of grounds for further discussion. After all: and
"Not enough importance or straws or renewal law, to comply with the request for further discussion ... the request for further discussion examined the test twice, ostensibly examining the basis of the claim examination of the concrete base ... needed, therefore, two cumulative conditions to justify the existence of further discussion: N. First, its importance, its hardness and the renewal of conflict with law or compliance with an earlier theory, the other, substantive justification to bring the matter for further discussion (Dr. I.. Sussman, civil procedures (seventh edition), 1995), p. 871); also see Dng"tz 4757/93 Freiberg v. Attorney
Attorney General et al, PD SE (5) 359). " (2485/95 Afrofim DNA

5,129,371 Housing and initiating v. State of Israel, not published)
Matter before us, there was no justification for the said no-nonsense, and that the petition from being rejected.
Given day, Gimel tribe התש"ס (20/1/2000).
Wording is subject to change and formulation changes