Background
Nino Khakmishvili Khananshvili sued for a declaration that she was entitled to register ownership of an apartment in Bat Yam. She alleged that Michael and Fania Blanco sold the apartment to her and her late husband in 1984, and that she had possessed it ever since. Avi Blanco, the sellers’ heir, maintained that the apartment had only been rented to the couple and that they continued living there without permission.
The Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court credited Khananshvili’s consistent account and relied in part on a written sale agreement, rejecting Blanco’s challenges to its authenticity. It held that she was entitled to register ownership. Blanco appealed and sought to stay the judgment so that registration could not occur before the appeal was decided, arguing that Khananshvili might transfer the apartment to a third party and thereby cause irreversible harm. An interim stay had been entered on June 28, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ruth Ronnen denied the application to stay execution of the District Court’s judgment. The Court reiterated that filing an appeal does not itself stay a judgment and that an appellant seeking a stay must show both favorable prospects on appeal and that the balance of convenience supports relief, with greater weight generally given to the latter consideration.
The only harm Blanco identified was the possibility that Khananshvili might transfer the apartment to a third party, rendering the appeal theoretical. Because that risk could be fully addressed by prohibiting any disposition after ownership was registered—and Khananshvili had agreed to such an order—the Court found no justification for preventing registration itself. Given that agreement, the Court found it unnecessary to assess the appeal’s prospects.
The Court permitted Khananshvili to register ownership but prohibited her from making any other disposition of the apartment until the appeal is resolved. The injunction was conditioned on Blanco depositing security of NIS 75,000 in cash or by bank guarantee within 30 days to cover potential harm to Khananshvili. No costs were awarded.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal does not automatically stay enforcement of an Israeli civil judgment.
- Where a narrower injunction adequately protects the appeal, the Court may reject a complete stay and allow the judgment to be implemented in part.
- A no-disposition order can preserve an appellant’s claimed rights while allowing the prevailing party to register title, subject to appropriate security.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Supreme Court’s preference for tailored interim relief. A claimed risk of an irreversible third-party transfer did not justify blocking registration when a narrower prohibition on dispositions could preserve the effectiveness of the pending appeal.
For property litigants, the ruling also underscores that the balance-of-convenience inquiry may resolve a stay application without any preliminary evaluation of the appeal’s merits.