"... The mere existence of a joint marriage, even if it was prolonged, is not sufficient to establish a partnership in a residential apartment by virtue of general law. If you say so, you will find that you are introducing through the back door the presumption of partnership, which in my opinion does not apply in parallel with the Property Relations Law.
...
In order for rights in a residential apartment registered in the name of one spouse to the other spouse to be granted, the latter must show factual circumstances, in addition to the very existence of the marriage, from which it can be deduced - by virtue of the general law - that rights in the residential apartment are granted."
- In order to recognize a partnership in a dwelling, additional factual circumstances must be shown, beyond the very existence of a prolonged marriage, as in Tax Appeal 1398/11 [Nevo] it was held that:
"... In most cases in which the courts accepted the claim of partnership, it was proven that financial investments were made in the property on the part of the spouse claiming the partnership, and these investments constituted 'something additional' that testifies to the intention of the partnership."
- The case law held that when the court is required to examine the partnership between the spouses, the quality of marital life is examined, i.e., the existence of a proper and harmonious marital relationship, the duration of the marriage, whether it is a first or second marriage, the nature of the property, the source of the property and the investments made in it by both parties, and circumstances and evidence from which it can be inferred that there is an intention or hypothesis to share in an external property (see in this regard: Family Case (Krayot) 46279-03-16 B. v. A.V.B. [Nevo] (June 27, 2021), hereinafter: "FC 46279-03-16").
- The intention of the parties, their legitimate expectation, the interest of reliance and respect for their wishes will also be examined. In Lifshitz's article, he proposed five principles for examining the inclusion of an external asset, and I will present the main points of them as quoted in the Family Appeal (Tel Aviv-Yafo) 1279/07 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo] (June 28, 2010):
"First, maintaining the distinction between the assets of the joint effort and the external assets when we are dealing with the balance of resources, and that premarital assets, in accordance with the provisions of the law, are not equal.