Execution file 515509-06-24: vehicle sale, buyer ID corrected | Court Rulings against Bank Mizrahi Tefahot

What this page is based on

This page is based on decisions of Registrar Shirley Gideon in execution file 515509-06-24 at the Haifa Execution Office, a vehicle pledge enforcement file in which the creditor is Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing Ltd: the decision of 16.8.2026, the decision of 29.10.2026 and the corrected decision of 2.11.2026, and on the receiver's clarification of 2.11.2026. The decisions are not published on the Enforcement and Collection Authority's website; redacted copies are kept in the site's source archive. The debtor's name, the buyer's name, ID numbers and the vehicle number are not given here.

Background: enforcing a vehicle pledge through a receiver

The receiver in the file is attorney Victor Fisher, as he is named in the decisions. According to his clarification, he is from the office of the creditor's counsel. According to the decision, the request to approve the sale was accompanied by an appraisal, copies of advertisements (in a newspaper and on the 'Bidspirit' site) and a bidding protocol. A redemption letter was delivered to the debtor on 18.10.2026, and a copy of the confirmation of service and the process server's affidavit were attached.

The decision of 28.10.2026: sale approved

On 28.10.2026 the registrar approved, "for the reasons in the request and in the absence of an objection on behalf of the debtor", the sale of the vehicle, a Honda, for NIS 73,500. The receiver's fee was set at 6% plus VAT of the sale price, together with the stage A fee in the file. It was ordered that "the full price shall be deposited in the execution file (without the VAT component, insofar as it applies)", that the receiver file a financial report stating whether third parties hold rights, and that a formal order be signed after receipt of the full price and filing of the report. An incorrect ID number was recorded in the decision next to the buyer's name; according to the receiver's later clarification, the number was recorded by mistake.

The debtor's request and the decision of 29.10.2026

The debtor filed an urgent request on 28.10.2026. On 29.10.2026 the registrar ordered the receiver to clarify whether the ID number given in the request to approve the sale was the buyer's, to support this with a copy of the buyer's identity card, and to file the clarification by 2.11.2026.

The debtor's claims that the service confirmations were defective were rejected. According to the decision, they "were not properly substantiated", no basis was laid that the deliveries were not made to him, and "there is a presumption of service that has not been rebutted". The decision also states that the sale was approved after the redemption period had passed, when the debtor had neither sought to exercise the right of redemption nor deposited the amount of the price. The registrar found no grounds to stay the proceedings, "especially as no request has yet been filed for a formal order transferring the rights in the vehicle".

The receiver's clarification and the corrected decision of 2.11.2026

On 2.11.2026 the receiver filed a clarification stating that an error had occurred in the wording of the request to approve the sale: "due to an error by the handling clerk" the buyer's details had been mixed up with those of his daughter. The receiver stated that the buyer had already deposited the balance of the price and that a request for a formal sale order would be filed separately.

The same day the registrar gave a corrected decision "replacing and cancelling the decision of 29.10.2026". It approves the sale on the same terms, again in the words "in the absence of an objection on behalf of the debtor". The corrected decision does not refer to the debtor's request of 28.10.2026. The sources do not make clear whether the reference to 29.10.2026, the day the debtor's request was decided, is meant to refer to the decision of 28.10.2026, in which the sale was first approved.

Link to the stage B attorney fee

In the decision of 16.8.2026, on the debtor's request for directions, the registrar held that the ledger filed by the creditor reflects the debt it claims. She noted, however, that "it included a stage B fee component, even though this component was apparently cancelled in the other proceeding", and ordered the creditor to explain why it remained and to file a corrected ledger if needed. The decision does not give the number of "the other proceeding", and the sources do not state whether the creditor filed the clarification. On the cancellation and reinstatement of the stage B fee in the same creditor's promissory-note file, see file 506468-12-24: stage B fee cancelled and awarded again.

What this means for debtors

Under the decision of 29.10.2026, a debtor who claims defective service must lay a basis that rebuts the presumption of service, and a debtor who wants to prevent a sale can exercise the right of redemption or deposit the amount of the price within the redemption period. The decisions are not binding precedent. As of the decision of 2.11.2026 the formal order had not yet been signed, and the proceedings are ongoing. Related guides: Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing and vehicle pledges and execution proceedings against the bank.

Frequently asked questions about court rulings against Mizrahi Tefahot Bank

What was approved in execution file 515509-06-24?

The sale of a Honda vehicle pledged to Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing for NIS 73,500. The receiver's fee was set at 6% plus VAT of the sale price, together with the stage A fee in the file.

What was wrong with the decision of 28.10.2026?

An incorrect ID number was recorded next to the buyer's name. According to the receiver's clarification of 2.11.2026, the buyer's details were mixed up with his daughter's "due to an error by the handling clerk".

What was decided on the debtor's request?

On 29.10.2026 the debtor's claims that the service confirmations were defective were rejected ("there is a presumption of service that has not been rebutted"), and the request for a stay was refused. The receiver was required to clarify the ID number and attach a copy of the buyer's identity card by 2.11.2026.

Has the sale been completed?

As of the corrected decision of 2.11.2026, the formal order had not yet been signed. Under the decision it will be signed after the full price is received and the receiver's report is filed. According to the receiver's clarification, a request for a formal order will be filed separately.

What is the link to the stage B fee?

In the decision of 16.8.2026 the registrar ordered the creditor to explain why its ledger included a stage B fee component that was apparently cancelled "in the other proceeding". The decision does not give the number of the other proceeding.

Source grade: Full text, verified. This article was written from the text of the decision itself.

Written from the text of the decisions themselves (16.8.2026, 29.10.2026 and the corrected decision of 2.11.2026) and from the receiver's clarification of 2.11.2026, in copies with identifying details blacked out. The decision of 28.10.2026 is identical in wording to the corrected decision, except for the ID number recorded next to the buyer's name. The decisions are not published on the Enforcement and Collection Authority's website. The names of the debtor and the buyer, ID numbers and the vehicle number are omitted. A registrar's decision in a single file is not binding precedent.

How to cite

Execution file 515509-06-24 (vehicle pledge), Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing Ltd v. a debtor (debtor's details omitted), request no. 14, Execution Office, Haifa (Registrar Shirley Gideon), 02.11.2026. Source: Net HaMishpat (Israeli courts database), case Execution file 515509-06-24 (vehicle pledge), Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing Ltd v. a debtor (debtor's details omitted), request no. 14.

Execution file 515509-06-24: sale of a vehicle pledged to Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing approved, buyer's details corrected (2026)