First, it should be noted that any irrevocable power of attorney can be executed in the English language by an English notary provided that both the lawyer and the client, both, understand the language.
Of course, a notarial translation can also be made into other languages such as Portuguese, Ukrainian, Russian or any other language, again provided that the notary and the client both speak the same language.
When will we need an irrevocable notary power of attorney?
Before we explain to you how contacting the office of a notary lawyer and an irrevocable power of attorney will help in handling the preparation of various types of power of attorney, we will first understand from what power the power of attorney institution derives its legal power.
According to notary attorney Rachel Schahar, the mission law establishes provisions regarding the granting of all types of powers of attorney.
By means of a power of attorney, a person, known as a sender, may perform legal actions, in the name or in place of the sender, towards any third party.
The mission law states that it is possible to give an irrevocable power of attorney and make a person a messenger for any legal action we want to perform The mission law states that the way to give an irrevocable power of attorney or any other power of attorney will be as follows:
The Mission Law, 5555 1965 – What does it stipulate regarding an irrevocable notarial power of attorney or any other power of attorney?
The mission and theme
- (a) Lihat is the power of attorney of a sender to take legal action on behalf of or in the place of a sender towards a third party.
(b) Any legal action can be used as the subject of a mission, except for an action that by its nature or by law must be performed personally.
The law of mission
- The sending of a person like him, and the act of sending, including his knowledge and intention, binds and entitles, according to the matter, the sender.
The purchase of the mission and its form
- (a) The consignment is granted by authorization, in writing or orally, by the sender to send, or by notification thereof by the sender to the third party, or by the behavior of the sender towards one of them.
(b) If a person is required to require the operation of a courier, he is entitled not to acknowledge the courier as long as written authorization was not presented to him and a copy of it was not given to him.
- Every person is kosher to be sent to an action that he himself is willing to do, but the general legal kosher laws will apply to his rights and obligations.
The scope of the mission
- (a) The assignment applies – without limitation in authorization – to any action that is reasonably necessary for the proper performance of the subject of the assignment, but it does not apply – in the absence of express authorization for this – to proceedings before a court, tribunal or arbitrator, nor to compromise or waiver or action without reward.
(b) A sender may take any urgent and unexpected action reasonably necessary to safeguard the sender’s affairs in connection with the subject of the mission, even if the action exceeds the scope of authorization.
- (a) If a person acts under the authority of another’s agent without being authorized to do so or in deviation from his authorization, that other may, subject to what is stated in subsection (b), approve the action retrospectively; and retroactive approval – as authorization from the outset, provided that a right acquired by another person in good faith and in exchange before the approval is not impaired.
(b) The third party did not know at the time of the operation that the courier was operating without authorization or in violation of his authorization, the choice is his, as long as he is not informed of the approval of the operation, to consider the courier as having his word or to withdraw from the operation and claim damages from the courier.
(c) A corporation can approve an action taken on its behalf before its establishment, and the provisions of this section shall apply.
The most familiar version of a power of attorney is a written power of attorney. Within this “department” you can find a general power of attorney, an irrevocable notary power of attorney and a temporary power of attorney for a specific action only.
The ruling distinguishes between a general power of attorney and a specific power of attorney. While a specific power of attorney gives the sender power of attorney only for a single specific matter or for a certain action, on the other hand, a general power of attorney is given with the purpose of allowing the sender to perform any action without limitation.
At the same time, when a lawyer is given a notary to carry out a real estate transaction, the lawyer does not need a notary’s approval, according to the exception set forth in section 91 of the Real Estate Law.
Is an irrevocable notary power of attorney sufficient for the completion of a real estate transaction?
This question has come up in more than one ruling. For example, a question arose in the District Court of Jerusalem (TA 3082-09 Zamzam Ahmed Salman Shviki v. the heirs of the late Ahmed Muhammad Isa Othman)
The district court defined the question as follows: What is the king’s way of transferring rights in Makrakrein by virtue of an irrevocable power of attorney? When will the buyer need a declaratory judgment in order to transfer the rights to his name? Who is the necessary party in order to receive such a statement – is it the registered owner or the entire chain of buyers after him? Does an irrevocable power of attorney constitute a real estate transaction or is it only a tool for its execution? These are the main questions that arise in the lawsuit before me, along with the claims regarding the ownership of the land, an act of court and the absence of rivalry.
In the same lawsuit, the future of land in Silwan, Jerusalem was discussed. According to the registration from the property tax office during the Jordanian rule, the owner of the land was Issa Alivat. The same Issa died in Jerusalem in 1981, and according to the inheritance order issued by the Sharia Court in Jerusalem (Exhibit T/3) his heirs were four together, including Issa’s eldest son.
Ahmed Aliwat, known as “Abu Malek”. The eldest son also died according to the order of inheritance issued by the Sharia Court in Jerusalem (Exhibit T/4), his heirs are: his wife Amina Othman Ahmed Othman, Ashraf, Muhammad, Malek, Mirwat and Olfat – they are the defendants 1(a) to 1(f). His wife sold the land to a third party on the basis of an irrevocable notarial power of attorney, in which it is stated that the seller declares that he received the full price in cash from the buyer, and that he authorizes her to carry out the transfer on her behalf or at her command.
According to the plaintiff’s version, the rights were sold according to an irrevocable power of attorney signed before the notary, Dr. A. Matlon, and she received the full consideration in cash, according to the plaintiff’s version, he paid her 80,000 dinars.
The plaintiff claimed that he acted according to the custom of the members of the Muslim community as the representative of all the heirs of his father, brothers and sisters when he sold the plot in its entirety to Ms. Mayser on April 13, 1994 according to the irrevocable notarial power of attorney. Since Ms. Mayser was authorized to represent him and act on his behalf, the sale of the plot to others by her is the same as the sale of Abu Malek. Hence, these two powers of attorney fulfill the provision of Section 8 of the Land Law, 5779 – 1969 (hereinafter: “The Land Law”).
According to the plaintiff, the original powers of attorney were submitted as part of the aforementioned first procedure, and since the case is burning, the photocopies submitted by him must be accepted as evidence. By its nature or by law, it must be done personally.”
What is the essence of irrevocable notarial power of attorney?
The essence of a power of attorney is stated by the Honorable Judge M. Cheshin in BA 4092/90 Rina Mittelberg v. Neiger Shmuel, P.D. MH(2), 529 (hereinafter: “Mitelberg case”), in his stipulation:
“A power of attorney is nothing more than the power, ability, and authority granted to the sender to perform legal actions on behalf of the sender towards a third party (as stated in Section 1 of the Mission Law), but it does not in itself testify to the agreement between the sender and the sender, as to the circumstances under which the power of attorney can be exercised- The power: when will the sender be permitted and permitted to use the power of attorney, and when will it not be permitted and will not be permitted to use it. Indeed, it is difficult in my opinion that the same standard general power of attorney – containing thirty-two clauses full of powers and powers – was enough for him to win Shmuel is in his father’s house – and he is in the relationship between Shmuel and his father (or in the relationship between Shmuel and Rina).
And in the words of Judge Haim Cohen BA 712/74 Fromman v. Ezbon Fromman, PD L (3), 110:
“In our opinion, nothing can be learned about the deceased’s intentions from the fact that she used this printed form of power of attorney, or from the fact that among the hundreds of conditions in the thirty sections of this power of attorney, there is also the authorization of the power of attorney to accept a gift for himself. This power of attorney does not reflect the mission contract made between the deceased and the appellant, but on the face of it, it is only the means that will allow the appellant to carry out her mission, whatever the nature of her mission may be. The appellant had the duty to prove – not that she was given the power to take a gift for herself, but that the deceased intended that she use power This is about the amount of 70,000 pounds that she actually took for herself.” (ibid., 112).
The District Court determines that for the purpose of the issue brought before the District Court, there is no difference between a “regular” power of attorney and an “irrevocable” power of attorney, as was already ruled in the past, by the Honorable Judge Y. Kister BA 283/67 The Trustees of Avraham’s Assets Rafih v. The State of Israel, FD 22(1), 124, as follows:
“Giving an irrevocable power of attorney neither raises nor lowers it, because the whole issue of granting a power of attorney is a treatment for the actual transaction. It comes as a mere instrument for the execution of the transaction, and for the purpose of ensuring the execution of the agreement. According to Article 1521, the Majela must have some kind of existing right, in order to indemnify – The power can be irrevocable, and without such a right, the written power of attorney will not be useful, and the same is true according to other laws as well”(ibid., 137)
This is also how Judge M. Etzioni, BA 424/73 Melon Stefania v. Maklis, PD 20(2) 537, refers to the matter of irrevocable power of attorney, noting:
“It is necessary that the granting of the power of attorney be to the third party or to send himself an existing right for the purpose of securing which the power of attorney was given.” (ibid., 542).Judge M. Etzioni,
Likewise, when an irrevocable power of attorney is given to secure a right – the right is “center stage” (in the words of Judge Cheshin) and the power of attorney, with all its business importance, is nothing more than a substitute for that right.
At the same time, there may also be cases in which it can be seen in the power of attorney “that a real estate sale transaction took place” (CA 3812/97 Cohen Arzi v. Cohen Kishek (Nevo website) (28.12.97), this is when the power of attorney has “the necessary elements for making a transaction in real estate” (EA 309/87 Yahya v. Nimer (Nevo website) (September 15, 1999).
Can an irrevocable notary power of attorney testify on his own about a transaction?
“An irrevocable notarial power of attorney, itself, may indeed be used as a written document within the meaning of section 8 of the Land Law and the ruling even explicitly stated so, but what were the words supposed to be? Where it was possible to learn from what was said in the power of attorney itself, or from other explicit evidence, that a transaction took place of a seller of real estate. In the above-mentioned Law 380/80, in the Toukan case, the Supreme Court emphasized that Judge A. found that the general wording of the consideration is flawed in the requirements of the writing as defined in Section 8 of the Real Estate Law. The court emphasized there that a flaw such as this is not Normative completion possible.