Family file (Jerusalem) 48335-06-24 Anonymous vs. Anonymous

Before       The Honorable Judge Rivi Lev Ohayon

–

Plaintiff                Anonymous ID *****
By Attorney AwaMoving the venue of the hearing of Hofit Azran/Galit Miri

Against

Defendants 1.  Anonymous ID *****
By Attorney for Attorney Nitzan Itach
2.  Anonymous ID *****
By Attorney Chen Hollander

Judgment

A declaratory judgment is before a lawsuit according to which it will be determined that a loan agreement signed between the plaintiff and the defendant binds the two defendants, who were married to each other at the time the loan agreement was signed. 

Overview

1. The plaintiff is the mother of defendant 1 (hereinafter: the plaintiff).
2. The defendants are former spouses, who married as a DMI in 2014 and divorced in 2024 (hereinafter: the defendants, the defendant and the defendant, respectively).
3. On July 5, 2016, the defendants purchased an apartment in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem, which was registered in their name in equal parts (hereinafter: the "Apartment").
4. The plaintiff petitions for a judgment declaring that a loan agreement drawn up and signed between her and the defendant on June 1, 2016 (hereinafter: the "loan agreement" or the "agreement"), binds both defendants (the agreement was attached as Appendix 1 to the statement of claim).
5. The agreement was drawn up and signed in the office of Adv. Esther Toledano (hereinafter: " Toledano"), who is a relative of the plaintiff.
6. The agreement states that the plaintiff and the defendants (the borrowers according to the language of the agreement) approached the plaintiff with a request to receive a loan in the sum of ILS 680,000, for the purpose of purchasing an apartment in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.
7. Shortly after the signing of the agreement, the plaintiff transferred ILS 680,000 to the defendants (in two installments), and the money was used to purchase the apartment.
8. Toledano represented the defendants in the process of purchasing the apartment.
9. The defendant agrees to the claim and in fact is a partner in the plaintiff's claims that this is a loan agreement that binds the defendant as well.
10. On May 4, 2025, a pre-trial was held before me, and on November 2, 2025, an evidentiary hearing was held, at the end of which the parties summarized their arguments orally (the evidentiary hearing will henceforth be called the "hearing" or "the evidentiary hearing").

The plaintiff's main arguments

11. The loan agreement binds the two defendants, while the funds were given by the plaintiff for the purpose of purchasing the apartment for them, and they were also deposited in their joint bank account.
12. The loan is a joint debt of the defendants. The loan agreement was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant only, after receiving legal advice, in which it was clarified that the loan would also bind the defendant, by virtue of the balance of resources arrangement set forth in the Property Relations between Spouses Law - 5733-1973 (hereinafter: the "Law").  Hence, the defendant's signature on the loan agreement was not necessary to obligate her as well.
13. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The defendant knew very well that these were loan funds and that the plaintiff was relying on the shutdown. The loan money was given from the plaintiff's apartment, which was sold after she remarried.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

14. No security was registered in favor of the plaintiff in the apartment, due to the family closeness between the parties.
15. The conditions in the loan agreement for the return of the funds were met, following the sale of the apartment.

The defendant's main arguments

16. The claim must be accepted, and a declaratory order must be issued as requested in the statement of claim.
17. The defendant does not repudiate his share of the loan debt, and recognizes the existence of the defendants' joint debt.
18. Although the loan agreement is not signed by the defendant, we are dealing with a loan that was taken for the purpose of purchasing the defendants' rights in the apartment. If it were not for these funds, the defendants would not have had the ability to purchase the apartment.
19. The defendant knew very well that the money transferred to the defendants was given as a loan, even though she did not sign the agreement.
20. The loan money was transferred to the parties' joint account and from there was used for the purchase of the apartment.
21. This is a joint loan, both by virtue of the law, case law and justice.

The defendant's main arguments

22. The lawsuit was filed in extreme bad faith, when it was clear to the plaintiff that she had never lent anything to the defendants (and in particular to the defendant), and that all the claims came into the world at the beginning of the divorce proceedings between the defendants, and in order to create pressure on the defendant.
23. The defendant is not a signatory to the "forged" agreement that was attached to the statement of claim, and even if we assume that there is an agreement signed by the defendant, the legal rivalry is between the plaintiff and the defendant only.
24. The apartment was purchased from the defendants' equity, a mortgage taken from the bank and assistance provided by the parties' parents.
25. The money given by the plaintiff was transferred to the defendants as a complete gift (as the defendant's parents also transferred a sum of about a quarter of a million shekels) for the purpose of purchasing the apartment.
26. Copied from Nevo, the defendant was never told in any way, not even in a hint, that it was a loan or an amount that was required to be repaid. On the contrary, the plaintiff took pride in the extensive assistance she provided to the defendants for the purpose of purchasing the apartment.
27. The plaintiff never approached the defendant with any demand for the return of the money/alleged loan, and the first time she heard that it was a "loan" was in the framework of the legal proceedings against the defendant in the transfer of the rabbinical court.
28. The defendant did not know of the existence of a "loan agreement" that was allegedly signed between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that this was a forged agreement and a façade that was intended to rob the defendant of her property. An agreement that was allegedly made in cooperation with the plaintiff's relative, Adv. Toledano (it is not known whether she is aware of the use of her name in the statement of claim).
29. The plaintiff did not act to register a collateral or a comment regarding that alleged loan.
30. The defendant is cooperating with the plaintiff in order to take revenge on the defendant.
31. It is not possible to apply a "debt" to the defendant in accordance with the balance of resources arrangement in the law, when the defendant did not know of the existence of the "debt", and was not a party to the initial loan agreement, and the conditions for applying the debt are not met. If it is decided that there is a debt, it is a clear personal debt of the defendant.

Discussion and Decision

32. After holding hearings, reviewing the arguments of the parties and the materials placed before the court, I have reached the conclusion that the funds in question transferred from the plaintiff to the defendants are a "gift", and that the claim should be dismissed, all for the reasons that will be detailed below.

Normative outline

33. With regard to money received by spouses from their parents during the marriage, the starting point is that it is gift money, and therefore the "presumption of gift" must be applied, in light of the special relationship that prevails between them (see High Court of Justice 1907/22 Anonymous v. Anonymous (Nevo, June 12, 2022) (hereinafter: "High Court of Justice Anonymous")).

"It should be clarified more than necessary that as has been determined in past case law, when the court comes to decide the question of whether money received by spouses from their parents during their marriage should be classified as a gift or as a loan, the starting point is that the 'presumption of gift' should be applied, i.e., it should be assumed that the parents intended to give a gift to a couple, due to the special relationship of kinship that prevails between them (see: Civil Appeal 180/51 Goldkorn v.  Wissotzky, IsrSC 8 262, 265 (1954); Civil Appeal 34/88 Rice v.  Estate of the late Aberman, IsrSC 44(1) 278, 286-287 (1990); Civil Appeal 3829/91 Wallace v.  Gat, IsrSC 48(1) 801, 811 (1994); Civil Appeal Authority 5237/12 Suleiman v.  Golan, paragraphs 9-11 [Nevo] (August 28, 2012); Civil Appeal Authority 8068/16 Katan v.  25 [Nevo] N (25.1.2018))."

34. It was also held in the case of a certain High Court of Justice that in a crisis in the couple's marital life, it is not possible to turn the gifts they received from their parents during the marriage into loans. The person who claims the contradiction of the "presumption of gift" has the burden of contradicting the presumption:

Precisely, the assumption underlying this presumption is that the crisis in the marriage that occurred afterwards does not lead to the conclusion that gifts that the couple received from their parents during their marriage will become loans.