The Haifa Family Court dismissed a grandfather’s claim to cancel his commitment to gift an apartment to his granddaughter, ruling that his signature on a formal gift agreement and accompanying power of attorney demonstrated a clear intention to make the gift irrevocable. The court held that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to retract under the Gifts Law, and that there was no evidence of “reprehensible conduct” by the granddaughter or any deterioration in his financial situation that would justify revocation. As a result, the commitment to transfer the apartment remained valid and enforceable.
Edited by Adv. Daniel Sarugo
In this “Legal Brief,” we review a recent decision by the Haifa Family Court that addressed whether a grandfather could retract his commitment to give an apartment as a gift to his granddaughter.
Legal framework
The relevant legal provisions are Sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Gifts Law, 1968. Under Section 5(b) of the law, a donor may withdraw from a gift commitment as long as the gift has not been completed (in the case of real estate, until the property is registered in the donee’s name). However, this right exists only if the donor did not expressly waive it in writing, and only if the donee has not already changed their position based on the donor’s commitment.
Section 5(c) provides an additional ground for retraction, allowing a donor to cancel the commitment if the donee has behaved reprehensibly toward the donor or a member of the donor’s family, or if the donor’s financial situation has materially deteriorated.
Background
In this case, the plaintiff—an elderly man—sought to revoke his promise to transfer ownership of an apartment to his granddaughter (the daughter of his adopted son).
The grandfather and his late wife had signed a mutual will, stating that upon the death of one spouse, all property would pass to the surviving spouse. After his wife’s death, the grandfather entered into a gift agreement with his granddaughter, in which he undertook to transfer all his rights in the apartment to her as a gift, while reserving the right to continue living there for the remainder of his life.
Later, the grandfather filed suit, arguing that he was entitled to withdraw from the commitment under Sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Gifts Law.
The legal question
The court had to determine whether the grandfather’s situation fell within the provisions of Sections 5(b) or 5(c)—that is, whether he still had a right to retract his gift or whether the commitment had become irrevocable.
The Family Court rejected the claim and held that the gift commitment could not be canceled. First, the court found that the grandfather had signed a formal gift agreement and a power of attorney in favor of his granddaughter. Since the agreement did not include any clause allowing him to retract, and the power of attorney expressly authorized the transfer, the court ruled that the grandfather had effectively waived his right to withdraw under Section 5(b).
Moreover, the court determined that the grandfather fully understood the nature and implications of his actions when he signed the documents. His decision was made knowingly and voluntarily, leaving no room to claim later that he had not intended to make a binding commitment.
The court also dismissed the argument that the granddaughter had behaved reprehensibly, which might have justified cancellation under Section 5(c). Citing CA 350/96 Weiser v. Shavit, PD 52(5) 797 (1999), the court reiterated that three cumulative conditions must be met to establish “reprehensible conduct”:
- The gift was not merely an act of charity or one-sided kindness by the donor.
- The donor bears the burden of proving the donee’s reprehensible behavior.
- Both parties owe each other a duty of good faith.
Applying these principles, the court held that the gift was initiated by the grandfather himself and was not the product of any manipulation or bad faith. The grandfather also failed to prove that his granddaughter had acted improperly or violated her duty of good faith.
Outcome
Given the lack of evidence and the clear waiver of the right to retract, the Family Court dismissed the claim and ordered the grandfather to pay court costs.
FamC 49022-03-23 D.M. v. N.M.
(Edited by Adv. Daniel Sarugo, 31.8.25)
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].
