The father gave a gift and regretted it…
According to Israeli law, a gift means the acquisition of some property without receiving any consideration. Thus, there are quite a few cases in which family members give gifts to each other.
Sometimes these are gifts of marginal and negligible value, and sometimes they are valuable gifts, such as an apartment or part of it, given by one of the parents to their child.
In the case we will be dealing with, a father promised to give his son a gift in the form of rights to a residential apartment. Later, the father regretted it and asked to withdraw his commitment. What did the Family Court rule?
This is a procedure TAMSH (Tel Aviv) 37743-07-13 A.M. N. S.M. In which the Family Court only recently ruled.
In the interesting ruling, one can find a detailed explanation of the meaning of giving a gift to a family.
The lawsuit to cancel the gift
The father received in the framework inheritance Residential apartment. He also took possession of the property and even requested to rent it out in order to enjoy the rental profits.
The father used his son to manage the property and take care of the rental matters. Later, the father decided to give up his rights to the property and transfer it to his son without compensation. This decision was made by him at a time when relations between the two were good.
In the meantime, the relationship between father and son began to change for the worse, when the father claimed in court that his son, the defendant, had behaved inappropriately toward him for a period of time. The father claimed that he had not filed a complaint against his son with the police.
Due to the deterioration of relations, the father decided that he was not interested in giving his son the same gift in the form of rights to real estate. As part of his lawsuit, the father requested a restraining order against his son, preventing him from doing anything with the property until a final decision is made.
Arguments of the parties to the lawsuit – father and son
The father claimed that after he signed the affidavits transferring the rights to the apartment without consideration, his son began to behave inappropriately towards him, and therefore, shortly thereafter, he asked to withdraw his request.
The father also claimed that he never waived his right to cancel his commitment. He further claimed that his son did not change his situation for the worse because of this commitment.
The son, on the other hand, claimed that his father was a violent man, who often acted violently and even deceitfully towards those around him. The son also completely denied the father’s claims that he behaved in a disgraceful manner towards him, as evidence: he claimed that his father was hospitalized for a period of time and he was the only one who visited him.
The son also claimed that his father waived his right to withdraw from the offer in accordance with the law on the subject, in accordance with the notice he signed.
Waiting rule
Many people don’t know, but an obligation to give a gift is a legal obligation for all intents and purposes. There is even a law that regulates this. This law is called the Gift Law, 1968. The law defines what a gift is, stating that “a gift is the acquisition of property without consideration.”
Section 5 of the Gift Law states that an undertaking to give a gift must be in writing. However, it provides an exception for cases in which the giver of the gift may withdraw it.
The first exception stipulated in the law is: “As long as the recipient of the gift has not changed his situation in reliance on the obligation, the giver may withdraw from it, unless he waived this permission in writing.”
The second exception is in cases where the giver of the gift requests it due to inappropriate behavior on the part of the recipient of the gift. The law states: “If the return was justified by the recipient’s disgraceful behavior toward the giver or a member of his family or by a significant deterioration in the giver’s financial situation.”
Family Court Decision
The court was asked whether the defendant’s behavior was disgraceful, and whether the father waived his right to withdraw from the offer.
First, the court determined that the father did not register his rights to the apartment at any stage. The rights to the apartment, as of the date of the judgment, are still registered in the name of the plaintiff’s father.
The conclusion is that the plaintiff has no proprietary right at all to the property that he initially gave as a gift. However, this did not end the court’s examination, as the apartment was inherited, and the father is the heir at law..
The court also determined that the plaintiff had waived his right to withdraw from the gift, based on the written notice he gave when he gave the gift, as well as the testimonies of the parties. Therefore, it was determined that the father cannot withdraw from the gift that was given.
The court also rejected the father’s claim regarding the plaintiff’s disgraceful behavior. It was determined that the father did not prove any inappropriate behavior toward him on the part of his son, and certainly not any disgraceful behavior.
If that were not enough, the court also ruled that the father left a very bad impression with his testimony, and his testimony was not reliable at all, as he put it: “The plaintiff left an extremely difficult and unreliable impression, and gave versions that contradicted each other, in a way that could not be reconciled… The plaintiff behaved in the courtroom in a difficult and dishonest manner, and not only towards his son – the defendant, and it is a shame that this is so.”
In light of the above, the father’s claim was dismissed.
The conclusion from the ruling and the waiting law
Gifts are a blessed thing. Sometimes we want to give a gift to our loved ones or to people we wish to honor, but we must always remember that a commitment to a gift is essentially a contractual obligation for all intents and purposes.
Questions? Call for a personal conversation with a lawyer: 077-997-4020
