The Late Moshe, Shoob
Shoob & Co. Law Office
Adv. Shmuel Shoob
Shoob & Co. Law Office
View ProfileShmuel Shoob
About Shoob & Co. Law Office
Shoob & Co. is one of the leading law firms in Israel specializing in real estate, planning and construction. Established in 1957, the firm provides its clients with the full range of legal services across the entire spectrum of the real estate sector, including: representation in complex real estate transactions; real estate development; rezoning; municipal taxation, real estate taxation and betterment fees; expropriations; real estate litigation; claims pursuant to Clause 197 of the Planning and Construction Law (compensation for damages caused by zoning plans) and more. Shoob & Co. has a sterling reputation and its clientele includes many of Israel’s leading corporate and private real estate developers and management companies.
The firm is comprised of 16 lawyers, 3 interns and a joint-properties and parcellation procedures department. The firm is unique in its profound understanding of real estate laws, of all shapes and forms.
The firm is unique in the depth of its expertise in real estate law in all of its variety. The firm provides clients with full service transactional representation, from due diligence review and advising on other aspects of the purchase of real estate, implementation of the transaction, drafting and negotiating the relevant agreements (including joint venture and financing agreements), through the planning approval process to improve the property, optimizing the utilization of property, and handling matters with the various authorities, including the tax authorities.
The firm represents clients in combination deals and/or all types of real estate deals including TAMA 38 earthquake retrofit agreements, and assists in supporting authorities in the rezoning of land. The firm advises clients in transactions with contractors, drafting and negotiating agreements with tenants, handling all matters related to protected tenancy and more.
The firm specializes in:
support and assistance to promote approval of simple and complex city building plans and real estate associations and subdividing agricultural property that has been rezoned for construction, complex procedures that require working with the tax authorities and urban planning authorities, and understanding the real value of real estate.
Real Estate Issues
Over the years the firm has handled the planning of big real estate sites, such as: large plots of real estate with many owners in – West Rishon LeZion, Bat Yam, beyond the Yarkon, Pi Glilot, the Samuel Complex (Shekem Tel Aviv), Netanya, Nofei Yam (“HaGush HaGadol”) and more.
Shoob & Co. has obtained many landmark rulings in the real estate sector, among them:
• Decision in the Hamami case against the Rishon LeZion local committee, where the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that, as part of a compensation claim relating to a change in an approved urban development plan that harms a land owner – a relative portion of 40% cannot be deducted from the amount due for compensation as was customary. This ruling caused a revolution in the field of urban development compensation claims. The decision was reaffirmed within the framework of an additional hearing before five justices in the Supreme Court.
• The Israel Fruit Distribution Co. vs. Kfar Saba Local Council – a compensation case in which the court defined, for the first time, what constitutes “reasonable” compensation of property owners.
• Horowitz vs. Ra’anana Local Council – the firm represented Horowitz before the Supreme Court in what is today the guiding ruling defining “reasonable” damage that does not require compensation.
• Har vs. Netanya Local Council – handed down by the Supreme Court – in which compensation was granted in connection with land, the development of which was held up for years by various development plans, was fixed for the first time by viewing all the different plans as one plan for the purpose of calculating the damages.
• Bank Massad vs. the State of Israel – in which the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that land owners whose land was expropriated were entitled to receive compensation for loss of freehold rent until the State grants compensation.
• Isco Buildings vs. the State of Israel – in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Israel Lands Administration has no entitlement to a fee when transferring building rights between various plots.
• Moshe Shoob vs. Bnei Barak Planning and Building Committee – the decision was given by the Regional Appeals Committee as part of cancellation of conditions according to clauses 77 and 78 published by the Bnei Barak Planning and Building Committee giving Tama 38 earthquake retrofit permit expenses to and allocating public space on the ground floor of lots.
• Yitzhak Ben Artzi and 82 others vs. State of Israel – proceedings as part of the ending of holding by the State of land reserves through orders according to protocol 125 of the defense protocol (state of emergency) 1945.
• Dedicating an assistance fund named for Yaakov Hytner, the Finance Minister and others – as part of a Supreme Court ruling that compensation should be paid for requisitioning for “lost leases” through conceptual leasing fees derived from the changing value of land.
• Shalom Yerushalaim Divon and others vs. The Petah Tikva Local Committee For Design and Construction verdict – which the supreme court ruled that the owner of a land in which he build an apartment on, and that in which either he or his relatives resign for at least 4 years after construction has been completed, will not be required to pay enhancement fees, regardless of the number of owners on set property demanding to utilize this right.
• Yaron Yisha’ayhu Ltd. vs. The Petach Tikva Municipality – where the district court ruled that the owner of the appropriated property has, under paragraph 195(2) of the Law, a right of first refusal to repurchase it in the case of a rezoning, subject to two conditions: 1. The rezoning was made under the Planning and Building Law, and 2. The Municipality disclosed its intention to sell, rent or transfer it to a third party. The court required, in this case, to return in consideration the property to the appellant.
• Planning and Zoning Committee, Tel Aviv vs. Nof Yam Chaol Lavan Ltd. – the district court decided that an extensive use of a permit is not an event requiring a betterment fee on its own, but it is a realization of rights. Meaning that if a betterment fee was already charged, you will not be able to charge for a second time.
You may also like