Releasing Assets from the Administrator General in Israel: An Opinion on a Process That Asks a Great Deal of Families
Many families in the United States and Canada eventually discover that something their parents or grandparents left in Israel is not lost but held. An apartment, a plot of land, a share in a building or a bank balance may sit in the books of a state office. There it waits for someone to prove an entitlement. The law on release is old and broad. Moreover, it gives the officeholder generous discretion. Families, however, must prove ownership, death and kinship across borders, languages and decades. In my view, the process is legally defensible but practically opaque. That gap is where most families lose time and money.
This article is an opinion piece. It sets out how the courts have approached proof and identification. I also explain where the process works and where it does not. The article is not a guide to a specific case. Nor have I surveyed every decision on the subject. Readers should therefore check any description of practice against current official guidance.
Release Is Not the Same as Inheritance
The most common misunderstanding is that an inheritance order is the same as release. It is not. The order identifies the heirs and their shares. Release, by contrast, is the act by which the holder lets go of an asset. The first is a precondition of the second, since without an order there is no one to whom to release. Still, the order does not prove that a particular parcel or account exists. Nor does it show that the asset belongs to the estate or is held by a given office.
This distinction matters in practice for a further reason. An inheritance order can be obtained in a procedure that never examines the property question. A family that treats the order as the finish line may therefore have completed only one of three separate tasks. Those tasks are establishing who the heirs are, establishing that the asset belongs to the estate, and persuading the holder to release it. Because each has its own evidence, each can be lost on its own.
What the Courts Have Said
One family-court decision shows how the system looks from the ground. Its weight as precedent is limited, and it concerns identification. The decision is ת”ע 58557-12-19 (Nazareth Family Court, 23.03.2021), on the registration of a judicial order in an estate with heirs abroad. The court held that the rule requiring the registrar to register a court’s order does not cancel the registrar’s duty to keep a reliable register. That applies where an identification problem was not resolved in the judicial process. Accordingly, the registrar was permitted, and in some respects required, to insist on identification for certain heirs. At the same time, the estate administrator could act in place of an heir who could not be found. The lesson for foreign heirs is practical. Incomplete identity documents can hold up even a successful court order.
The Problem of the Absent Heir
Heirs abroad also face a quieter problem. Some do not know that an asset exists. Others do not know who else is entitled, or whether another branch of the family has already acted. When the heirs are dispersed across several American and Canadian cities and Israel, the question is not only who inherits. It is also who speaks for the family. A claim brought by some heirs without the others invites later challenge. For that reason, I regard locating and informing every heir as part of the release process itself, and not a preliminary courtesy.
Release Is a Sequence, Not a Form
Timing and expectations are a further practical point. Families often assume that release is a matter of filing the right form. In reality it is closer to a sequence. First identify the holder. Then establish the inheritance. After that, assemble the evidence of the owner’s connection to the asset and address any registry difficulties. Only then should the family ask for release. Each stage depends on the one before it, so a mistake early in the chain can surface at the end. An omitted heir, a misspelled name or an overbroad power of attorney are typical examples. For that reason, the first review of documents is, in my view, the most valuable stage.
Where the System Works and Where It Fails
The strengths are real. The Administrator General’s Office is a single, identifiable body with a defined role. In addition, the courts offer a route to review. The case law also protects the integrity of the land registry, which benefits owners and buyers alike. Insistence on identification, moreover, protects heirs from impostors and from careless registration.
The Weakness: Strictness Without Predictability
The weakness is not that the system is strict. A system that guards other people’s property should be strict. The real weakness is that strictness is not matched by predictability. Families are rarely told, in a usable form, what a complete application looks like. Nor are they told how long each stage should take. After a discretionary refusal, they are often not told why. Because evidence is the real contest, a claimant who does not know what is expected works in the dark.
The Incentive ProblemThere is, finally, an uncomfortable point about incentives. An authority holding assets for absent or unknown owners has every reason to be careful, yet few reasons to be quick. A mistaken release carries a visible cost, since a wrong person is paid or a third party’s rights are affected. By contrast, a mistaken delay carries a diffuse cost. Families abroad bear it, and they rarely complain publicly. Unless it is deliberately balanced, such a system will drift toward caution. This is why I place so much weight on service standards and reasons.
Opinion: Five Practical Reforms
My view is that the law’s architecture is defensible, but its practice is under-explained. That gap can be narrowed without amending a single section. I would therefore propose the following.
First, there should be service standards. These need not be a statutory deadline that the office could never meet. A published target would suffice. It could cover acknowledging an application, stating whether it is complete and giving a substantive response. Today the heir abroad cannot tell whether a quiet file is a file in progress. Even an honest answer, such as “your application will be considered within approximately X, subject to the following conditions”, would be an improvement.
Second, the authorities should publish what a complete application looks like. A checklist would eliminate a large share of the wasted correspondence. It should cover identity documents, proof of death and the inheritance order. In addition, it should list the evidence connecting the owner to the parcel and the form of powers of attorney. The family-court decision on registrar identification requirements shows how much turns on documentary gaps that could have been foreseen. Those gaps should be foreseeable to the applicant too.
Reasons and Access for Heirs Abroad
Third, discretionary decisions should, at least as a matter of practice, be accompanied by a duty to give reasons. A refusal should be explained in writing. That does not remove the authority’s discretion, but it makes the discretion reviewable. In my view, a power exercised in the public interest can only gain from being explained to the person it affects.
Fourth, the process should be accessible to heirs abroad. Official guidance, forms and explanatory material should exist in English. Likewise, the requirements for apostilles and powers of attorney should be stated in one place and kept current. This would cost little. It would also reduce the volume of defective applications and the burden on the offices that must reject them.
Fifth, the public conversation should be more honest. Advisers who promise recovery at the outset do families a disservice. So does an administrative culture in which the family is left to guess whether silence means refusal, delay or loss of the file. Honesty runs in both directions. The claimant should be told what cannot be promised. Likewise, the authority should say what it needs and when it will answer.
What Families Should Do in the Meantime
First, identify the holder before anything else. Is the asset held by the Administrator General as part of an estate or an account, or by some other body? The answer determines the forum, the evidence and the likely timetable. A request sent to the wrong office is often simply returned, and months are lost.
Second, settle the inheritance first or in parallel, and treat it as a separate task. An inheritance order identifies who stands in the owner’s shoes. Without it, no one has standing to ask for release on the owner’s behalf. Documents from abroad should be signed in the form Israeli institutions accept, usually with an apostille. Powers of attorney, moreover, should be specific to their purpose rather than broad and early.
Records, Planning and Family Unity
Third, ask for reasons and keep a record. A request to an authority should be in writing and should list the attached documents. It should also ask for a written response. If the answer is a refusal, ask for the reasons. If it is silence, record the date of each follow-up. Such a file shows diligence on the family’s side. It is valuable whether the next step is a renewed approach, a negotiated solution or a court application.
Fourth, plan for the long term and for the tax position. Release does not end the story. If the family intends to sell, several points should be reviewed before any commitment is signed. These are the registry position, any mortgage or lien, and the authority of every signatory. The Israeli and foreign tax consequences also need review. Advice in Israel and in the home country, in that sequence, avoids the most expensive surprises.
Fifth, keep the family informed and united. Every identified heir should be told. The powers of attorney and consents should also be collected in an organized way. A claim that skips an heir can be challenged later. Moreover, a family that fractures during a long process loses the one asset it controls, which is its own cooperation. The matter will rarely be quick, but it should at least be orderly.
Conclusion: A Process That Rewards Preparation
The release of assets from state custody in Israel is, in the end, a test of how a legal system treats the people it holds property for. A process that asks families to prove a great deal, wait an unknown time and accept an unexplained answer is not a failure of law. Rather, it is a failure of design, and design can be repaired. Until then, the family’s best protection is a careful, document-led and honestly managed claim.
Editorial review: Opinion draft for review by Adv. Oz Shoshan before attribution or publication. Case references should be verified against the official reports, and descriptions of current office practice should be checked against current official guidance before publication.
Disclaimer: Opinion and general information only, not legal advice. Shoshan Law practices Israeli law only.
