1 Shama v. Sadovsky, (1974) 28(i) P.D. 730; Weisman, J., “Jointly and Severally in Condominiums” (1987) 16 Mishpatim 197, at 206–210Google Scholar.

2 For example on pp. 166-168, with regard to the provisions for the settling of disputes among apartment owners.

3 Weisman, J., “Coproprieté par appartements et coproprieté horizontale” in Israeli Reports to the Eighth International Congress of Comparative Law (Institute for Legislative Research and Comparative Law, Jerusalem, 1970) 88, at 94–99Google Scholar.

4 Tedeschi, G., “Ownership and Co-ownership in a Condominium”, (1976) 30 HaPraklit 214, at 221–228Google Scholar.

5 Tzodler v. Yoseff, R.C.C. 7112/93 (December 5, 1994, unpublished).

6 See p. 27 in Chapter 5, where van der Merwe concludes that “as a legal institution sui generis … it undoubtedly leads to a better understanding of the practical working of the institution”. But compare p. 78 where he states that the right in an apartment “should be placed on the same footing as the ownership of land”.

7 Weisman, supra n. 3 at 100-101.

8 Cohen v. Shamay, (1970) 24(ii) P.D. 388, at 390. The Court's position is in harmony with the view suggested by the present writer, in the above menioned article (supra n. 3, at 101).

9 Land Law, 1969, (23 L.S.I. 283) section 52.

10 Netzigut Habayit Hamshutaf v. Marcus, (1987) 41(ii) P.D. 561.

11 Land Law, 1969, section 52.

12 Divon v. Hamemuneh al Hamirsham, C.A. (Jerusalem) 190/84, P.M. 5745 (2) 265, 267, 269 (with the exception of those components which serve more than one unit owner).

13 Criticism of the opinion of Justice Zeiler can be found in: J. Weisman, “Jointly and Severally in Condominiums”, supra n. 1, at 198-202.

14 Divon case, supra n. 12, at 269, 271.

15 This is the case in most Western European and Latin American countries (p. 47).

16 Lewenheim v. Schwartzman, (1963) 17 P.D. 1722, at 1726.

17 Kapan v. Shimoni, C.C. 213/70, P.M. 5734 (2)397, 403, 404. Compare: Tedeschi, “Ownership and Co-ownership in a Condominium”, supra n. 4, at 215-216.

18 Land Law, 1969, sections 63, 58, 57(a).

19 Section 8 of the Schedule of the Land Law, 1969.

20 Sections 57, 58 of the Land Law, 1969.

21 At p. 74. Similar provisions can be found also in Austria and Spain, at p. 73.

22 At pp. 75, 80, 81 (with regard to New South Wales), and see also p. 82 (with regard to South Africa and Singapore).

23 Section 58 of the Land Law, 1969.

24 So does France as well (pp. 93, 94, 97).

25 Section 55 (b) of the Land Law, 1969.

26 Section 60 of the Land Law, 1969.

27 Tzodler v. Yoseff, supra n. 5.