Who is a "continuing son"? Court rules that appointment in a cooperative does not automatically grant farm rights

The District Court in Haifa ruled this month on the rights to a farm in a northern moshav. The son claimed that the farm was transferred to him in a gift agreement 30 years ago, designating him as a "continuing son," while his three sisters argued that the will of their mother, who passed away in 2022, should be upheld, bequeathing the farm to all four children, with the son receiving only the residential house he built on the land.

Judge Esperanza Alon ruled that the rights to the farm will be divided among the four children, while the residential house will be granted to the son. It was determined that the "continuing son" agreement was intended to allow the son to build an additional house, not to grant him rights to the entire farm. Consequently, the request for leave to appeal against the Family Court ruling was rejected.

The question of intent in the gift agreement

The deceased and her late husband held "licensee" rights in an agricultural farm. In 1991, an agreement was signed between the deceased, her son, and his wife, designating him as a "continuing son." The cooperative accepted this request. A year later, the deceased signed an agreement with the cooperative and the Israel Land Authority (ILA) to build an additional residential unit for the son. The daughters do not live on the farm.

Following her death, the court had to determine if the farm was part of the estate. The ILA maintained that rights are registered to the deceased mother and that appointing a "continuing son" is not legally possible.

The son claimed the 1991 agreement was binding and intended to grant him full rights. The sisters argued that the mother only intended to allow their brother to build the additional house and that her will remains the binding expression of her wishes.

The court's ruling

The judge determined that the agreement lacked a clear statement of intent to transfer all rights to the farm while the mother was alive. The son's claim regarding his investment in the house is adequately addressed by the will, which grants him ownership of the structure he built.

The ruling noted that rights to farms in this region are regulated by a contract granting the cooperative land use rights. As this is a cooperative village rather than a moshav ovdim, the "continuing son" institution does not apply. The "bilateral allotment agreement" does not include the term "continuing son," and therefore, its use did not confer proprietary rights.

"The deceased could not have transferred her rights to the farm without prior written approval from the Authority. This approval was not presented. Furthermore, the cooperative's bylaws do not contain provisions regarding the acceptance of a 'continuing son' as a member," the ruling stated.