Shabbat kept the official housing desks quiet. No new land tenders, ministry housing data, Bank of Israel releases, or CBS updates.
The action was in court.
Thirty-eight buyers in Netanya say they were sold apartments they were never supposed to actually buy. An office buyer was told his 143-square-meter contract really meant 183.88. A woman waited 33 months for two apartments and, after years of litigation, walked away with ₪5,302. A Givat Shmuel couple learned that living somewhere for 22 years does not automatically erase a betterment levy. And a landlord lost its rent claim because the property did not have proper electricity.
The common thread: what the contract actually says matters more than what everyone thought the deal meant.
38 Netanya buyers say the plan was to flip, not buy
Thirty-eight buyers, described as dozens of Haredi families, sued Ampa Yuvalim, marketer Shmuel Lider, and Meron Ilit Yazamut.
They say they paid 7% at signing after being told they would never need to fund the remaining 93%. According to the claim, the apartments would be resold to someone else for a profit before completion.
They are asking the court to cancel the contracts, return their deposits, and return ₪2 million paid to the marketer.
These are allegations. They have not yet been tested in court, and the defendants have not filed their defence.
A similar structure appeared in a separate Kiryat Yam case. A buyer paid ₪100,000 toward a planned urban-renewal apartment. Only ₪64,800, exactly 7% of the stated price, was recorded as payment for the apartment. Another ₪35,200 was documented separately as a “loan” to the project company.
That implies a full apartment price of about ₪925,700, meaning the buyer actually transferred roughly 10.8% of the price, not 7%.
The practical rule: when you see a 7/93, 10/90, or 20/80 deal, count every payment and every document, not just the amount written in the purchase agreement. Also ask exactly which money is protected by a bank guarantee.
Our guide to 80/20 and 90/10 new-build deals
Sources: TheMarker, August 30 | TheMarker, August 28
His contract said 143 square meters. The court said 183.88.
In 2014, Arie Erlich bought two office units at the Arei HaHof mall in Rishon LeZion for ₪858,000.
The contract described them as about 143 square meters gross, but it also said that if the final area differed by more than 5%, the price would be adjusted at ₪6,000 per square meter plus VAT.
A later measurement put the units at 192.52 square meters. The court ultimately settled on 183.88 square meters.
There is no binding Israeli standard for calculating gross office area, so the court relied on how the rest of the project had actually been sold: roughly 29%–30% added to net area for common spaces such as corridors, stairs, lifts, toilets and lobbies.
The final calculation left Erlich owing ₪209,448, including the area adjustment, electricity and management fees. He was also ordered to pay ₪40,000 in legal costs.
The lesson for commercial buyers: ask for the loading factor — the percentage added to your private floor area for shared space — and get the calculation in writing.
Source: Bizportal Takdin, August 29
She waited 33 months for two apartments. Final payout: ₪5,302
A French immigrant bought two three-room apartments in Netanya’s Bereshit project in 2019 for ₪1.55 million each.
Delivery was due on July 22, 2020.
She received the keys on April 20, 2023: 33 months late.
The court rejected the developer’s explanations involving Covid, workers, materials, authorities, the electricity company and buyer-requested changes because the developer did not produce enough evidence tying those problems to the actual delay.
Using the Sale (Apartments) Law formula, delay compensation came to about ₪425,623 for both apartments.
The buyer also sought as much as ₪2.46 million for loss of value. The court accepted only one part of that claim — changes to the lobby — worth ₪39,000.
Then came the problem: the developer argued she still owed money under the purchase contracts.
After both sides’ claims were calculated, the developer owed ₪321,823 and the buyer owed ₪316,521.
Final result after set-off: ₪5,302 to the buyer.
The case involved more than three years of litigation, eight evidentiary hearings and two court-appointed experts.
The lesson: statutory delay compensation can be substantial, but before suing, calculate what you still owe the developer. The numbers are eventually netted against each other.
Our earlier report on delivery delays and VAT charges
Source: Bizportal Takdin, August 28
They lived there 22 years. The levy clock still had not finished.
Rachel and Lior Yakir lived in their Givat Shmuel apartment from 2002 until the end of 2024.
When they sold, the local planning committee charged a betterment levy based on planning changes that increased the property’s value.
A 2007 plan qualified for an exemption.
A June 2023 balcony-expansion plan did not.
The couple argued that because they had lived in the apartment for 22 years, they easily passed the four-year residence requirement.
The appeals committee disagreed.
For a new planning benefit, the relevant clock starts with the new plan, not the original construction of the building.
From June 2023 until the sale was only about 18 months. The exemption required 48 months.
Their appeal was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay ₪5,000 in costs.
Also important: this case involved a betterment levy, not Israel’s capital-gains tax, despite how some coverage described it.
If a recent plan increased your property’s rights or value, check the plan’s approval date before selling.
Our guide to Israel’s betterment levy
Source: Bizportal Takdin, August 29
Four days into the lease, there was still no proper electricity
A business tenant, Kvutzat Hagai, rented an industrial property and cancelled the agreement only four days later.
The reason: it could not properly operate its equipment because the property was still running on temporary electricity.
The landlord tried to collect the rent cheques anyway.
The court dismissed the claim completely and ordered the landlord to pay ₪15,000 in costs and legal fees.
Recordings showed that even the landlord’s representatives knew the electricity situation was uncertain. Months later, when the same property was rented to another tenant, the new lease specifically disclosed the electrical infrastructure problem.
That later clause became evidence against the landlord.
The court treated the situation as frustration of contract: the tenant could not use the property for the purpose for which it had been rented.
The rule is simple. If your business depends on electricity, a permit, Form 4, gas, water, ventilation or another critical system, do not rely on “it will be ready.” Put the requirement in the contract.
Source: Bizportal Takdin, August 28
Sources
TheMarker: 38 buyers sue to cancel Netanya deals, August 30
TheMarker: Kiryat Yam apartments marketed as a “dream opportunity,” August 28
Bizportal Takdin: Rishon LeZion office-area ruling, August 29
Bizportal Takdin: Netanya 33-month delivery delay, August 28
Bizportal Takdin: Givat Shmuel betterment levy ruling, August 29
Bizportal Takdin: Industrial lease cancelled over electricity supply, August 28
