Caselaw

Talham (Krayot) 17970-04-23 H.A. v. M.K. - part 5

January 1, 2026
Print

Second, even fruits that are within the scope of natural betterment are subject to the same law as the external property.  However, the improvement of private properties will be considered balanced assets in two situations.  The first is when the improvement of the private property requires continuous effort during the marriage, such as the improvement of the value of a private company by the shareholder who also works as a manager in the company.  The second is the mixing of assets.

Third, the burden of proof is on the claimant to have an intention to share in an external property, while proving concrete factual circumstances beyond the marriage and joint residence.

Fourth, if one of the parties merges his private property with the joint property, it would not be just because the same will not be done with the property of the other spouse.

Fifth, if it is a family residential apartment or any other distinct family asset, and in the circumstances of a first marriage, a proper lifestyle, a prolonged marriage for a period exceeding twenty years, then the default intention is to share by virtue of the general law, and it will be incumbent upon the registered owner to prove that this is not the case and that this is what he disclosed."

  1. InTax Appeal 1398/11 above [Nevo], the Honorable Justice Amit proposed a list of parameters for examination, which were left to be considered in the binding opinion of the Honorable Justice Danziger, the parameters are:

"In my opinion, for the sake of the weight of that "something extra" that is required to prove a specific intention to share, leniency should be given to the residential apartment as opposed to other assets that were brought to the marriage by one of the spouses.

Without setting rivets, I will note below a number of parameters that must be taken into account in our discussion on the question of whether to recognize a specific sharing in the residential apartment:

( - ) Whether the apartment was brought by one of the spouses to the marriage (as in the present case) or purchased by one of the spouses after the marriage.

Previous part1...45
6...16Next part