Talham (Krayot) 17970-04-23 H.A. v. M.K.

I have before me an eviction claim filed by the man's father (hereinafter: "the father") against the woman and a declaratory claim for the balance of resources and dissolution of the partnership, filed by the woman against the man and the father-in-law.  The man and the woman (hereinafter: "the couple"), are former Muslim spouses, who were married in a criminal appeal under Sharia law on 00.00.2011 when the woman was 19 years old.  The two minors were born from the parties' marriage, A., born in 2012 and A., born in 2014.  The couple divorced on 00.00.2022.

1. Immediately after the marriage, the former couple lived together in the residential apartment, in 2016 the building was demolished and rebuilt, the former couple rented an apartment during the construction period, and then moved into the house that is the subject of the dispute.
2. The wife asks for a declaration of her rights in the rate of half and the dissolution of the partnership in the residential apartment located on the land known as the ... ..  From the land ..., and a different appeal is filed (hereinafter: the "Residence"), dissolution of the partnership, balancing of resources and restitution of investments.
3. The woman still lives in an apartment upstairs with their children, and the man lives downstairs with his parents.

The Sequence of Proceedings in the Parties' Files

4. On October 20, 2022, the husband filed a lawsuit to remove the woman's hand from the residential apartment located on the land he owns ... , ...  ..  (Registration from the Register of Rights, according to which the rights are registered, a different appeal dated June 29, 2022, Appendix 6 to the affidavit of the main witness (hereinafter: "the TA'ar"), defendant 2).  The case was transferred to this court from the Magistrate's Court (Family Case 30973-10-22), and was consolidated before me by consent.
5. On April 13, 2023, the woman filed the property claim (family file 17970-04-23).
6. In addition, a lawsuit was filed regarding the minors, which is still being conducted (HCJ 28665-06-21); two claims for protection orders and a monetary claim for electricity and water debts, filed by the man's parents against the woman (family file 60289-06-25). These claims are not included in this judgment.
7. In the various cases, a number of pre-trial hearings were held, affidavits of the main witness were submitted, and two evidentiary hearings were held on May 22, 2024 and December 16, 2024. The reference will be to the transcript of the minutes by date.  Summaries were submitted in writing.
8. It should be noted that the ID number of defendant 1, the man, is incorrect in the filing of the property claim and in all the pleadings in this case, and was corrected by me.

Summary of the woman's arguments

9. The woman claimed that since they married, she had lived with the man in a previous apartment that was built on land registered in the father-in-law's name, while the building permit also listed the man's name as an applicant (a copy of the building permit from 2014 was attached to the statement of claim as Appendix C, and in order to appeal the decision of the plaintiff's registrar, a permit was attached as Appendix 5 in which the "removal of applicant's name" was amended as Appendix C). This proves that the apartment belongs to both of them.  The woman claimed the right to register half of the rights in the apartment, to dissolve the partnership and to return the investments she had invested in its construction.
10. In her summaries, the wife referred to the husband's and father-in-law's confirmation that she had invested in the construction of the apartment and financed it from the money of her business, which strengthens her claim to be entitled to half of the rights in the apartment that was built during the marriage.
11. In 2016, it was agreed between the man and the woman and the hot man to demolish the house and build a new building. The woman and the man moved into a temporarily rented apartment with the neighbors.  The woman participated in financing the construction from her work money, from the sale of a jeep for close to ILS 140,000 that was bought by her parents, and the man and her father-in-law deceived her and convinced her to sell it and used his money and savings of about ILS 400,000 that she accumulated from her work before marriage.  In his interrogation, the man confirmed the sale of the jeep during the construction of the apartment, which strengthens her version that she sold the car in order to invest the proceeds in construction.
12. The woman claimed that during the construction of the house, the man worked in its construction together with his father-in-law and brother and had no income, and therefore she actually bore the payments required for the purchase of building materials, and she alone financed part of the construction costs from her income.
13. The woman claimed that she also contributed the money for the tiles bought from Be'er Sheva, the costs of the paint and the paint fee, as well as the plaster, as well as the coating of the house with stone outside and to the best of her memory she gave the stone a sum of at least ILS 8,000, she also financed the plasterwork from what she earned from her work in the living room in the amount of ILS 9,000.
14. The Ottoman settlement [old version] in 1916 also claimed to have purchased sanitary ware, such as taps and toilets. Together with the man, she paid for the shutter and aluminum windows.
15. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2) The air conditioners in the new apartment were purchased by the one who purchased the sum of ILS 5,700 and paid for their assembly.
16. The woman claimed that she had been deceived after the woman and the mother-in-law assured her that the commercial floor was intended for her living room, and based on this she financed the flooring and the floor rent. She also claimed that she participated in the sum of ILS 120,000 in the issuance of the permits, the engineering of the house, the purchase of electrical materials, and the contractor's salary.
17. To bolster her version, she referred to the man's admission that the woman had opened a business on the first floor even before the construction was completed.
18. After the dispute between the parties broke out and the divorce suit was filed, Ham filed a lawsuit to evict the woman from the apartment in order to deprive her of her rights, while the man denied his participation in the construction and claimed that his father financed her alone, a claim that is not true.
19. As part of this lawsuit, Ham claimed that the woman lived in the PA and that the apartment was not promised to her before the marriage. This claim was refuted, the woman did not know about the rental agreements until the eviction claim was filed, and the mother-in-law confirmed in his interrogation that he was not obligated to make a contract with her, but only with his son.
20. The father-in-law confirmed that the first lease with his son was made only in 2018, and not before.
21. The lease, which was drawn up only in 2018, shows that the woman does not live in the municipality, and agreements made during the divorce claim are fictitious, with the aim of claiming that the woman has the status of a licensee. During his interrogation, the man confirmed that the agreements were intended only for the purpose of municipal taxes.  Nor was the actual rent paid.
22. As part of the eviction claim filed by the father-in-law, he changed the building permit in his name and deleted the man's name, in order to claim that the woman lived in the municipality. These actions, the drafting of rental agreements and the removal of the name from the permit, prove that the woman would not have lived in the authority, and therefore he has no right to evict the woman.
23. All the actions of the man and the hot man are intended to deprive the woman of her rights in the apartment by presenting a false picture. Therefore, the woman's version should be preferred and her entitlement to half of the apartment as well as the amount of money she invested in the construction, which was not concealed or refuted during the defendants' interrogations.
24. There is no prenuptial agreement between the woman and the man, the woman is entitled to half of the apartment.
25. The woman showed that the registration of the property did not reflect the real ownership, but rather a fictitious registration intended to hide her share in the apartment.
26. In most of the cases in which the courts accepted the claim of sharing, it was proven that financial investments were made in the property on the part of the spouse claiming to be sharing, and these investments constituted "something extra" attesting to the intention of sharing.

Summary of the man's arguments

27. The man claimed that the woman had abandoned her claim for a balance of resources, since she had not complied with a document disclosure and review order issued by the court, and had not submitted accounting documents, account statements, or pay slips on her behalf, and the proceedings were prolonged without any action on her part.
28. The man argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed and the woman should be ordered to pay costs, since her version was baseless and lacking evidence. He claimed that the land belonged to his father, who inherited it, the wife had no income or savings before the marriage, she was 19 years old after school.  The woman even confessed to fraud before the National Security Council, which undermines her credibility.  He also claimed that the car was purchased by leasing and returned due to non-compliance with the payments, regardless of her claims.
29. Quoted from Nevo, the man argued that an evidentiary rule is essential in Israeli law, that oral evidence that contradicts a written document should not be accepted, and certainly not an official public document.
30. The man claimed that the apartment was an external property owned by the former father-in-law, who was built with his own money, without the wife's investment and without the intention or obligation to transfer ownership to the couple.

Summary of Hot Claims

31. The father-in-law claimed that the land and the apartment that is the subject of the lawsuit are his exclusive property, and the woman has no right to them.
32. Ham denies any investment or contribution on the part of the woman, and claimed that these are general and baseless allegations, contrary to written documents.
33. On the aforementioned land stood an old building that had been demolished, and the mother-in-law built a new building of several floors in its place at his own expense, while giving the man and wife permission to use the apartment that had been built.
34. The father-in-law claimed that no transaction was made for the transfer of ownership or rights in the land, and that the license application did not confer ownership. He also claimed that he was entitled to revoke any permission granted, and he did so when the lawsuit was filed.
35. The woman raises various claims about the investments she made in the apartment, but Ham denies all of them and claims that these are later and contradictory versions, while he was the one who financed and built the entire building, and presented proof.
36. As part of the eviction lawsuit, the woman was required to present receipts or documents to prove the investments, but to date she has not produced anything.
37. Ham argued that the woman is prevented from claiming a change in the registry or ownership of the land, and that there are no grounds in the law or case law for changing the registry or granting ownership rights. According to him, at most, the woman has a financial right in the framework of a balance of resources vis-à-vis her former spouse, while the land and the building are assets that do not belong to the couple and therefore the woman or the man has no right to the property.
38. The woman claimed the man's confession based on an edited and fragmentary excerpt from the man's statement. Ham denies the claim as incorrect and tendentious.  He further argued that without the presentation of the full recording and the recording device, there is no admissibility of the claim, and that the man's words have no legal value for the transfer of ownership or any confession, since he has no legal authority to do so.

Discussion and Decision