The father sued his son: The legal drama that reached the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that a father cannot cancel a land sale transaction registered in his son's name. The court applied the "gift presumption" in parent-child relationships.
Many parents finance real estate deals for their children and register the property in their name, but what happens when the parent wants to back out? In a family dispute that reached the Supreme Court, it was determined that a father who financed the purchase of a 1.5-dunam plot and registered it in his son's name cannot cancel a transaction in which the son sold the land to a third party for 200,000 shekels.
The affair began with the purchase of a 1,500-square-meter plot, which the father fully financed, while the rights were officially registered in the Land Registry in the son's name. Later, the son signed an agreement to sell the land to an external buyer. The father subsequently filed a lawsuit in the District Court against his son and the buyer, demanding to cancel the sale. He claimed he was the true owner and that the registration was for "trust" purposes only, denying it was a "gift."
The son, represented by attorney Azmi Younis Nassar, argued it was a gift. The buyer, represented by attorney Marua Khalu Ali, emphasized that he purchased the real estate in good faith and for consideration.
The Supreme Court judges rejected the father's appeal, explaining the difference between ordinary transactions and those between parents and children. The court determined that while financing property for another usually implies a trust, in parent-child relationships, the legal presumption is reversed to a "gift presumption," where the parent intends to grant the property as an absolute gift.
The court ruled that the parent bears a heavy burden to prove otherwise, especially when the property is registered in the Land Registry. In this case, the father failed to meet this burden, as it was proven he frequently provided financial support to all his children. The District Court's verdict was upheld, and the father was ordered to pay 10,000 shekels in legal costs. The verdict was delivered by judges Alex Stein, David Mintz, and Yael Willner.
Attorney Marua Khalu Ali stated: "The Supreme Court's verdict strengthens the status of the registry as a cornerstone in real estate law. The court determined that claims not anchored in the registry do not override the rights of a third party who relied on the registry lawfully."
