On 21 October 2025 Moti Buchbot, a registrar of Israel's Execution Office (the state enforcement authority that collects judgment and promissory-note debts), ordered "the cancellation of all proceedings carried out in the file, and the cancellation of the stage B attorney fee that was added to the debt in the file". The amount cancelled was 21,456.50 shekels, the fee of the lawyers for Mizrahi Tefahot Leasing, the leasing arm of Bank Mizrahi Tefahot, represented by the firm Chen Fisher Gabbay.
Eleven months later, on 9 September 2026, the same registrar, in the same file, wrote one line: "As requested, in accordance with the provisions of the Execution Law." The amount went back onto the debt, with a value date three months earlier than the decision.
Between those two decisions the amount travelled through another file, in another office, before another registrar. This is the trail, document by document.
In brief
- 29.1.2025: in promissory-note file 506468-12-24 (Netanya office) the debt was increased by a 21,456.50-shekel "attorney fee principal", on the basis of a warning reported as served on 22.12.2024.
- 21.10.2025: registrar Buchbot found that the debtor was outside Israel on the reported service date, moved the service date to 29.9.2025, and cancelled all proceedings and the fee.
- 22.7.2026: in vehicle-pledge file 515509-06-24 (Haifa office) the creditor's debt ledger was filed, and the amount appears in it again. The balance rises from 179,627.58 to 201,084.08 shekels.
- 16.8.2026: registrar Shirley Gideon ordered the creditor to explain "the reason for leaving this component" in the debt.
- 25.8.2026 and 31.8.2026: a reversal was entered in the ledger. The court-appointed receiver, attorney Victor Fisher, blamed "a technical gap in updating the bank's systems only" and wrote that there was "no basis for the stage B fee component in the debt".
- 31.8.2026, the same day: in the note file a "request to award stage B attorney fees" was filed, saying the cancellation "stemmed solely from the extension of time ... and not from any reason on the merits".
- 9.9.2026: registrar Buchbot granted it. On 10.9.2026 the debt was increased by 21,456.50 shekels, value date 5.6.2026.
What a stage B fee is
In an Israeli enforcement file the creditor's attorney fee is added to the debt the debtor must pay. Section 10(a) of the Execution Law, 5727-1967, points to the Israel Bar's minimum tariff, "unless the execution registrar has set a different fee, upon a request submitted to him". Under section 10(c) that fee is treated "as expenses under section 9", and linkage differentials and interest accrue on it until payment. An American reader would recognise the idea as fee-shifting written into the collection file itself.
The fee is paid in stages. Chen Fisher Gabbay itself described the condition for stage B in its request: that "the period set in the regulations" from service of the warning has passed, and that "actual proceedings to collect the debt" were taken. Put simply: no service of the warning, no elapsed period, no stage B.
The decision of 21 October 2025
This is the full decision, without the debtor's details:
"In my decision of 30.9.2025 the creditor was required to address the findings in the process server's affidavit and the delivery confirmation it submitted, regarding service of the warning on the debtor, against the findings in the report of entries and exits [from Israel] that the debtor attached to the request for an extension of time.
In view of what is argued at the beginning of section 2 of the response before me, and since according to the findings of the entries and exits report attached by the debtor, as of the date of service of the warning reported by the creditor (22.12.2024), the debtor was outside the borders of the State of Israel, I order that the date of delivery of the warning in the file be corrected to 29.9.2025 (the date the opposition and the request for an extension of time were filed).
Likewise, I order the cancellation of all proceedings carried out in the file, and the cancellation of the stage B attorney fee that was added to the debt in the file.
The creditor's counsel is reminded that the examination of the parties' claims regarding the substance of the debt claimed in this file is entrusted to the court that will hear the opposition.
Having examined the parties' claims regarding local jurisdiction, and in view of the debtor's residential address ([omitted]), I order that the opposition be transferred to the Netanya Magistrates' Court.
The stay of proceedings and of funds in the file shall remain in force.
Pursuant to regulation 108(d) of the Execution Regulations, 5740-1979, the creditor must update this file with the outcome of the proceeding in court within 14 days of the end of the litigation."
Given on 21.10.2025 by registrar Moti Buchbot, Netanya Execution Office, file 506468-12-24.
The reason is in the decision itself: on the day the warning was reported as handed to the debtor, the debtor was not in Israel. Hence the corrected service date, and hence the cancellation of the proceedings and of the fee built on it.
July 2026: the amount returns, in another file
Alongside the note file there is a pledge file over the same debtor's car, 515509-06-24 in the Haifa office, before registrar Shirley Gideon. Attorney Victor Fisher of Chen Fisher Gabbay was appointed receiver there.
The creditor's debt ledger of 22.7.2026, filed in the pledge file, contains a line of 21,456.50 shekels. The balance jumps from 179,627.58 to 201,084.08 shekels. That is exactly the amount cancelled on 21.10.2025.
The debtor pointed this out in a request of 10.8.2026. On 16.8.2026 registrar Gideon decided:
"However, a review of the ledger shows that it includes a stage B fee component, although this component was ostensibly cancelled in the other proceeding. The creditor shall therefore explain the reason for leaving this component in the claimed debt balance, and shall file a corrected ledger, if required."
In the same decision the registrar ordered the debtor to deposit the car, and held that "the clarification required of the creditor regarding the stage B fee component does not delay or postpone the execution of this order".
"A technical gap"
On 31.8.2026 attorney Fisher replied, signing as receiver:
"Indeed, as argued, the stage B attorney fee component was cancelled in the note file following the decision of 21/10/25."
"The ledger filed with the previous request, which included the stage B fee component, stemmed from a technical gap in updating the bank's systems only."
"This does not constitute a waiver of the creditor's right to the said fee."
"As of this date ... there is no basis for the stage B fee component in the debt."
A corrected ledger was attached, with a reversal line dated 25.8.2026: "cancellation of stage B fee per judicial decision", minus 21,456.50 shekels.
According to the debtor, the explanation does not fit the documents. A "gap in updating" is an old entry that was never removed. Here, according to the ledger, the entry is new: it is dated 22.7.2026, nine months after the cancellation. And the reversal was entered only after the registrar asked.
The same day: a request to award the fee "again"
On that same 31.8.2026 a request was filed in the note file, on a form bearing attorney Victor Fisher's name and signature, signed in its body by attorney Amira Anis of Chen Fisher Gabbay. This is the full text, without the debtor's details:
"Request to award stage B attorney fees
The honourable head of the Execution Office is requested to award the creditor stage B attorney fees, for the following reasons:
1. The debtor filed a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to the execution of the warning/note, claiming that the warning was not duly served on him on time, because he was abroad.
2. In a decision of 21/10/25 the honourable registrar granted the request, ordered that the date of service of the warning be updated to the date the debtor filed the request, 29/9/26, and as a result all proceedings taken in the file up to that date were cancelled, including the stage B attorney fee previously awarded.
3. In the opposition proceeding, a judgment/decision was given on 31/5/2026 in the Netanya Magistrates' Court by senior registrar Guy Smolarchik, dismissing the debtor's opposition in full.
4. The creditor filed an update on the outcome of the opposition, and on 2/6/2026 the honourable registrar ordered the stay of proceedings lifted and the debt principal increased, in accordance with the Magistrates' Court decision, by 2,000 shekels in legal costs.
5. Pursuant to that decision, and the lapse of the period set by law from the date of service of the warning (on its updated date) without the debtor paying his debt, the creditor took actual collection proceedings to enforce the note.
6. Therefore, since actual proceedings to collect the debt were taken after the period set in the Execution Regulations (Fees, Attorney Fees and Expenses) had passed, the conditions for awarding stage B attorney fees again are met, as was the practice in the file before its cancellation, in accordance with section 10(a) of the Execution Law and the Israel Bar Rules (Recommended Minimum Tariff), 5760-2000.
7. It is clarified that the cancellation of the stage B fee stemmed solely from the extension of time granted to the debtor and the update of the service date, and not from any reason on the merits; and since the debtor's opposition was dismissed and the propriety of the proceedings was in any case confirmed, and collection proceedings including attachments and an attachment of a vehicle were carried out, the cause of the stage B fee charge is renewed.
8. In view of all the above, the honourable registrar is requested to order that stage B fees be awarded to the creditor."
The request is signed "Amira Anis, Adv., Chen Fisher Gabbay law office, counsel for the creditor", internal no. 20905/247.1.
What the request says, and what the decision says
Three things stand out when the request is laid next to the decision it describes.
The reason. Under paragraph 7, the cancellation stemmed "solely" from the extension of time, "and not from any reason on the merits". The decision of 21.10.2025 says something else: the registrar found a fact, that on the reported service date the debtor was outside the country, and therefore the warning was not served that day. That is a finding about how the proceeding was opened, not a technicality about deadlines.
The date. Paragraph 2 says the service date was updated "to 29/9/26". The decision set 29.9.2025. A decision from October 2025 could not have set a date in September 2026.
What is missing. The request does not mention that on that very day, in the pledge file, the same lawyer told another registrar there was "no basis for the stage B fee component in the debt", and that the amount had already been presented to her once after it was cancelled. The statement that "the propriety of the proceedings was confirmed" is offered without a quotation. According to the debtor, the judgment of 31.5.2026 dismissed the opposition on the debt itself but did not find that the warning had been properly served on the reported date.
The decision of 9 September 2026
The decision was given as a note on the request form. This is its entire text:
"27 Elul 5786, 09/09/2026. Decision on general request (88). 506468-12-24. Hon. registrar Moti Buchbot. As requested, in accordance with the provisions of the Execution Law. For handling by the secretariat. Decision digitally signed by Hon. registrar Moti Buchbot on 09/09/2026."
It does not address the reason for the earlier cancellation, the amount, or the date from which linkage and interest will run.
On 10.9.2026 the debt in the note file was increased by an "attorney fee principal - decision" of 21,456.50 shekels. The value date recorded: 5.6.2026. Under section 10(c) of the law, linkage and interest accrue on the fee "from the dates the Minister of Justice sets in regulations". An earlier value date means interest for a period in which the fee had not yet been awarded.
The same amount, three times
- January 2025: on the basis of a service the registrar later found could not have taken place that day.
- July 2026: in a ledger presented to the registrar in the pledge file, nine months after it was cancelled, as part of the debt for which the car was sold.
- September 2026: on the basis of a request that described the cancellation as a technicality.
The creditor may ask for attorney fees, and the registrar has power to award them. The question here is not whether a fee is due. The question is how the facts on which two registrars decided were put to them.
Good faith is not optional
A lawyer who applies to an execution registrar is not only one side's advocate. The Israel Bar's professional ethics rules forbid misleading the tribunal. And a receiver, appointed by the registrar and acting on the registrar's instructions, owes a duty of good faith and fairness to everyone concerned, including the debtor whose property he sells. In US terms, a court-appointed receiver is a fiduciary for the estate, not a collection agent. When the same person is both counsel for the creditor and the receiver, that duty does not divide by file.
The receiver's good faith is binding. It requires telling the registrar in Haifa and the registrar in Netanya the same thing on the same day.
Questions for Chen Fisher Gabbay and attorney Victor Fisher
- Who entered the fee in the ledger on 22.7.2026, nine months after it was cancelled, and on what basis?
- What is the "technical gap in updating the bank's systems", when the entry is new and not an old one left behind?
- Why was registrar Buchbot told the cancellation did not stem "from any reason on the merits", when the decision rests on the debtor being abroad on the reported service date?
- Why was he not told, in the same request, that on the same day the pledge file was told there was "no basis" for the component?
- On what basis was a value date of 5.6.2026 set for a fee awarded on 9.9.2026?
This article is based on the decision of registrar Moti Buchbot of 21.10.2025 in file 506468-12-24 (Netanya); the decision of registrar Shirley Gideon of 16.8.2026 in file 515509-06-24 (Haifa); the receiver's response of 31.8.2026 and the corrected ledger attached to it; the creditor's request of 31.8.2026 to award stage B fees and the decision on it of 9.9.2026; the action report in the note file; and section 10 of the Execution Law, 5727-1967. Quotations are our translation from Hebrew. The debtor's details have been omitted. Claims attributed to the debtor are his version and remain to be decided. This article was written and edited with the assistance of artificial intelligence. A response from the firm and the creditor will be published if received.