What is the difference between the Superintendent of Land Registration and a court?

The Superintendent is a judicial forum devoted to condominium disputes, with jurisdiction over defined types of claims between apartment owners. Proceedings before the Superintendent are usually faster and less costly than equivalent proceedings in court.

Can unpaid house committee charges be collected through the Superintendent?

Yes. A claim against an apartment owner to recover unpaid house committee charges is one of the most common claims brought before the Superintendent, provided that the decisions imposing the charges were lawfully adopted and are documented.

What must be shown to bring a claim against a holdout owner in a TAMA 38 project?

It must be shown that the majority required by law has been obtained, that the proposal is reasonable, and that the apartment owner's refusal is unreasonable in the circumstances. Each case is examined on its own merits, according to the type and terms of the project.

Holdout Owner in TAMA 38 and Pinui-Binui: Representing a Non-Consenting Owner

Representing an Owner Who Objects to TAMA 38 or Pinui-Binui

Are your neighbours and the developer suing you because you did not sign up to TAMA 38 or pinui-binui? Even if most of your neighbours have signed, you do not always have to agree. The law protects owners who have a good reason to refuse, and requires that all residents receive equal consideration. We represent such owners before the Superintendent of Land Registration and in court.

In short: once the owners of two thirds of the apartments have signed, the Superintendent of Land Registration or the court can be asked to approve the project without your signature. They will do so only if your refusal is unreasonable (section 5A of the Strengthening Law, section 2 of the Pinui-Binui Law). On this page: when a refusal is reasonable, the rights of elderly owners, what can be achieved when the consideration is unequal, when an injunction can be sought and what it risks, and a short check to help you see where you stand.

Can I be forced to sign?

Not directly, but the project can be approved without you. Where there is a two-thirds majority, the developer and the owners who signed can sue. The forum can approve the works and appoint a lawyer or accountant to sign on your behalf. In pinui-binui it can also hold you liable for damage caused to your neighbours. This happens only if the refusal is unreasonable, and that is where the defence lies.

TAMA 38/1 and the Shaked alternative, added apartments: the owners of two thirds of the apartments and two thirds of the common property (section 5 of the Strengthening Law).
TAMA 38/2 and the Shaked alternative, demolition and reconstruction: the same majority, in a building of at least 4 apartments and more than two owners (section 5A). In a building of 6 or more apartments, an owner of more than 30% of the apartments is counted in a limited way.
Pinui-binui: two thirds of all the apartments in the project, and in each building at least three fifths of the apartments and more than half of the common property (section 1 of the Pinui-Binui Law).

What is the "Shaked alternative"? TAMA 38 has ended in most cities. Instead, the municipality's local planning committee can approve its own plan to strengthen an old building or to demolish and rebuild it, with additional building rights given to the developer in return. This route is called the "Shaked alternative", after the Interior Minister who promoted the amendment to the law in 2022 (Amendment 139 to the Planning and Building Law). As regards your rights towards your neighbours and the developer, the rules are the same as in TAMA 38.

Who decides: the Superintendent of Land Registration or the court?

In TAMA 38 and the Shaked alternative, the Superintendent of Land Registration decides. In pinui-binui, the court decides. This affects procedure, deadlines and remedies, so the first thing to check in a statement of claim is which forum it was filed in and under which law.

In both tracks the forum can appoint an appraiser. In TAMA, an appraiser from the list of the Government Authority for Urban Renewal (section 6A of the Strengthening Law). In pinui-binui, a pinui-binui appraiser decides whether the deal is economically viable, and that finding has the status of a presumption (section 2A of the Pinui-Binui Law).

Please note: our representation is in the civil proceedings before the Superintendent or the court. We do not represent objections to plans or permit applications before planning committees.

When is my refusal considered reasonable?

The law lists situations in which a refusal will not be considered unreasonable: the deal is not economically viable, no alternative accommodation was offered, no adequate security was offered, there are special personal circumstances, or no answer was given for a person with a disability or an elderly person. The list is open, and the forum examines each case on its facts.

The deal is not economically viable. If a pinui-binui appraiser found that it is, that is a presumption, but it can be rebutted.
No alternative accommodation was offered for the construction period, including adjustments for a person with a disability.
No adequate security was offered for performance of the deal.
Special personal circumstances that make the deal, on the terms agreed with the neighbours, unreasonable for you.
A person with a disability: no adjustments in the new apartment, or no consideration for existing adjustments.
An elderly owner living in the apartment: no alternative was offered in addition to a replacement apartment, such as moving to a retirement home, an alternative apartment, cash at the capitalised value, two apartments or a smaller apartment with a balancing payment.
An owner aged 75 or over, terminally ill or entitled to long-term care benefit: no alternative under the previous item was offered.

In demolition and reconstruction (TAMA 38/2 and the Shaked alternative) all grounds apply (section 5A(a2) of the Strengthening Law). For added apartments only grounds 1, 3 and 4 apply, and an owner aged 75 or over or confined to the home also has a right to alternative accommodation during the works (section 5(b1)).

What can be achieved when the consideration is unequal?

Even where there is a majority and the project will be approved, you can demand equal consideration. The forum can appoint an appraiser to examine whether your replacement apartment is equal to that of the other owners and, if not, order a correction: a different apartment, additional area or compensation.

Anyone acting for the developer, or whose fee depends on the deal, must disclose this and report to the owners any non-trivial change in the consideration of one owner compared with the others. A breach allows an owner to withdraw consent, even after signing (section 5E of the Strengthening Law).

A case from the office: one owner against the whole building

The late Adv. Sharon Gershoni, the owner of an apartment in a building in Tel Aviv, did not sign a TAMA 38/2 agreement. Twelve apartment owners and the developer company sued her before the Senior Superintendent of Land Registration in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, to have the project approved without her (case 5/136/2021). We represented her together with Adv. Noam Kolodny. In the defence we presented an alternative architectural plan, offers from other developers, and an argument that the consideration offered to her was not equal. Sharon passed away during the proceedings, which continued against her heir.

On 1.12.2022 a consent judgment was given, following the Superintendent's proposal: an appraiser was appointed on behalf of the Superintendent, with his fees paid by the developer, to examine the equality of the consideration compared with the apartment that received the best consideration in the building. The defendant could choose between monetary compensation and a different replacement apartment, and the security in the agreement applied to it as well. Following the opinion, the defendant received a better replacement apartment, on a higher floor and with a better aspect, at no extra cost.

The takeaway: even where there is a majority for the project, an objecting owner who substantiates a claim of inequality can achieve a real correction in the consideration. Every case is examined on its own facts, and the outcome of one case is no promise of the outcome in another.

Abusive signing, owners' meetings and cancelling a deal

In some situations the deal itself can be cancelled: abusive signing, a deal signed without a meeting and a summary of offer document, and a developer who did not meet the statutory deadlines.

Abusive signing: signing in a language not understood without explanation, exploiting a disability, posing as a representative of an authority, or misleading information, for example about the number of signatories. The Commissioner at the Government Authority for Urban Renewal may declare the deal void (section 5B of the Pinui-Binui Law, section 5D of the Strengthening Law).
Meeting and summary of offer: before the first deal the developer must convene the owners and give all of them a summary of offer document. If not, a majority of the owners may decide to cancel the deals as long as 40% have not signed (sections 1A-1C of the Pinui-Binui Law, section 5B of the Strengthening Law).
A developer who does not progress: in TAMA, if within 18 months of the first deal half of the owners have not signed, within 3 years the majority has not been obtained, or within 3.5 years no permit application has been accepted. In pinui-binui, two years for half, 4 years for three fifths and 4.5 years to file a plan. In these situations a majority of the owners may decide that those who signed may cancel (section 5C of the Strengthening Law, section 1D of the Pinui-Binui Law).
Verification of consent: in TAMA, an owner's consent is given in writing and verified by a lawyer like a transaction deed (section 7 of the Strengthening Law). It is worth checking that all the signatures counted towards the majority are valid.

Can the project be stopped by an injunction?

Yes, you can ask for a temporary injunction to hold up the project until a decision is made. It is a powerful tool, but a risky one: anyone seeking such an injunction must sign an undertaking to compensate, usually without a cap, and deposit security. If the proceedings fail, they may have to pay substantial compensation for the delay of the whole project, to all the residents and to the developer.

This is what regulation 96 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018 provides: interim relief is conditional on a personal undertaking to compensate for any damage caused by the order if it lapses, and on security set at the court's discretion.

Legal proceedings by a single owner can delay an entire project. In the Dafna compound in Tel Aviv, for example, one owner out of 66 challenged in court the agreements her neighbours had signed with the developer, and the project stalled (Globes, 22.1.2022).

So an injunction is appropriate only where there is a strong, well-founded claim, and after weighing the risk against what can be achieved through negotiation or ordinary proceedings without stopping the project.

What is the risk if I keep refusing?

If the forum finds that the refusal is unreasonable, it can approve the project, appoint someone to sign in your place and award costs. In pinui-binui you can also be held liable for the damage caused to the owners who agreed, but the court may reduce the compensation according to the amount of damage, ability to pay and the circumstances of the deal (section 3 of the Pinui-Binui Law).

So the decision whether to object, negotiate or agree on terms should be made after checking the majority, the agreement, the security and the equality of consideration, and not on instinct.

Majority and defences check

Based on the figures you enter, the tool checks whether there appears to be a majority in the building for a claim, which defences arise from your circumstances, and whether the deadlines by which the developer had to obtain signatures or file a permit application have passed. It is an initial check, not a substitute for reviewing the documents.

Disclaimer: the result is an initial assessment only, based on the data entered, and is not legal advice. Use of the tool is at the user's responsibility and subject to the terms of use.

Received a statement of claim? What to do

Do not ignore it. There is a short deadline for filing a statement of defence, and an owner who does not file may lose the chance to be heard. Check the majority, the agreement and the security, and build a defence on facts, appraisal and sometimes an alternative plan or offer.

Checking the majority and signatures: the land registry extract, the condominium order, the attachments, and verification of the consents.
Reviewing the agreement and the offer: the consideration for each apartment, equality, security, alternative accommodation and deadlines.
Evidence: an appraiser's opinion, an alternative architectural plan, offers from other developers, and documents on personal circumstances.
Defence and negotiation: the proceedings often also open the way to an improved offer. A consent judgment can secure a correction and security.

What to bring to the meeting

The statement of claim and all decisions given in the case.
The proposed agreement, the summary of offer document and the submitted plans.
The land registry extract and the condominium order.
Letters and notices from the developer and the house committee.
Documents on age, disability or personal circumstances, if relevant.

Questions and answers

What is a holdout owner?

"Holdout owner" is the common term for an apartment owner who has not signed a TAMA 38 or pinui-binui agreement when most neighbours have. The law speaks of a "refusing" or "objecting" owner, and the legal question is whether the refusal is reasonable.

Can I be sued for not signing TAMA 38?

Yes, if the owners of two thirds of the apartments and two thirds of the common property have signed. The claim is filed with the Superintendent of Land Registration, who examines whether the refusal is unreasonable and considers the special circumstances of demolishing the apartment.

I am over 75. Can I be forced to move?

The law gives the elderly special protection. In demolition and reconstruction and in pinui-binui, the refusal of an owner aged 75 or over who lives in the apartment will not be considered unreasonable if no alternative was offered in addition to the replacement apartment, such as moving to a retirement home, an alternative apartment or cash at the capitalised value.

Is TAMA 38 still relevant after its expiry?

Yes. Projects that received a permit continue, and the Strengthening Law, including the Superintendent's jurisdiction and the objectors' defences, also applies to plans under Amendment 139 to the Planning and Building Law (the Shaked alternative).