A surprising abandoned apartment dispute came before the Haifa District Court when a woman living in the U.S. discovered that a neighbor had taken over the Israeli apartment she inherited from her late father. The man claimed he bought the property years earlier and had a signed contract to prove it—arguing that the apartment had been left vacant, neglected, and even used as a drug den. But the court found major red flags: the plaintiff’s signature was forged, the sale was never reported properly, and the timeline didn’t add up. Since the apartment was officially registered and the woman had only recently learned of the trespasser, the statute of limitations didn’t apply. The court ruled in her favor, declared the sale void, and ordered the man to vacate.
Edited by Rotem Ish Tov, with the assistance of intern Ofir Madmoni
In this case brief about an abandoned apartment dispute, we review a decision by the Haifa District Court regarding a key legal question: Can a signed real estate contract be invalidated due to forgery and lack of true consent, even after years of physical possession by another party?
Section 5(2) of the Statute of Limitations Law, 1958, sets a 15-year limitation period for unregistered properties and a 25-year period for registered properties. This distinction provides greater legal protection for officially registered rights, ensuring property records remain stable. As a result, a person cannot legally claim ownership of a registered property merely by occupying it—no matter how long it has been left seemingly abandoned.
Case Background:
This abandoned apartment dispute revolved around an apartment inherited by the plaintiff from her late father. Living in the U.S. and not visiting Israel during the relevant period, the plaintiff discovered in 2017—via a private investigator—that a man had been living in the apartment without her knowledge. The man claimed he had legally purchased the property under a signed agreement.
The plaintiff sought a declaration affirming her ownership of the apartment, nullification of the alleged sale agreement, and an eviction order against the defendant. She claimed the agreement was a forgery and cited major inconsistencies that defied logic.
The defendant argued that the lawsuit was time-barred, stating the apartment had been abandoned for over 15 years. He said he had lived in the building his whole life and had taken over the neglected apartment once the plaintiff’s father moved into assisted living. At that time, the apartment became a hangout for drug users, prompting him to occupy it out of necessity. He further claimed he had purchased the apartment from the plaintiff and raised an additional claim—late in the proceedings—that any eviction should be contingent on repayment for his investments in the property.
Court Decision:
The court accepted the plaintiff’s claims in full and ruled that she remained the rightful owner of the apartment.
First, it rejected the defendant’s argument about the statute of limitations. Because the apartment was a registered property, the 25-year limitation period applied. Since the defendant claimed possession since 2002, the time limit had not yet passed. Moreover, taking over registered property without the owner’s consent is unlawful. The plaintiff had only become aware of the trespasser in 2017, so the limitation period only began then.
Second, the court determined that the plaintiff’s signature on the alleged sale agreement had been forged. It accepted the opinion of a handwriting expert—appointed with both parties’ consent—who provided a clear and reasoned report confirming the forgery.
Additional irregularities also cast doubt on the authenticity of the agreement: incorrect personal details, an unexplained delay in reporting the sale to tax authorities (done only by the defendant), and an official confirmation that the plaintiff had not entered Israel during the relevant time. The agreement was allegedly signed on a Saturday, by two religious individuals, without legal counsel, and before the estate was officially transferred to the plaintiff—further undermining its credibility.
Beyond this, the court noted inconsistencies between the defendant’s current testimony and his statements in previous legal proceedings, which amounted to judicial estoppel and barred him from making contradictory claims in this case.
Given all this, the court unequivocally ruled that the sale agreement was invalid and that the plaintiff was the lawful owner. It ordered the defendant to vacate the apartment.
As a side note, the court dismissed the defendant’s claim for compensation for improvements made to the apartment. He had filed no counterclaim and presented no proof of expenses.
(Case Reference: Civil Case 25152-01-22 Mokai v. Elmaleh)
Gindi Caspi & Co. is one of Israel’s most prominent law firms in real estate, planning and zoning, and urban renewal. With decades of extensive experience handling complex and large-scale real estate transactions, the firm is consistently ranked among the top-tier firms in these fields by all major rating companies. Notably, the international LEGAL 500 recognized Gindi Caspi & Co. as a Leader in real estate, planning, and zoning and highlighted Adv. Ziv Caspi as a Leading Individual in Israeli law. The firm has also received numerous accolades, including ranking among the top real estate law firms (Dun’stars) in planning, zoning, and urban renewal. It was honored as a “pillar and cornerstone in fulfilling the nation’s vision for building and settling the land.” For five consecutive years, the firm has been ranked first in Israel in the field of urban renewal.
For inquiries, contact [email protected].
