It was claimed that the plaintiff drew up tables according to which the sum of NIS 1,149,181 was inheritance money, and in addition to the fact that about NIS 800,000 of the inheritance money was invested in the purchase of the rights and in the renovation of the apartment an additional NIS 250,000. It was argued that while the mortgage repayments were about NIS 340,000, the plaintiff invested in the apartment, at most, about NIS 170,000. It was further claimed that in the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff prepared proposals for the distribution of the apartment in a manner that indicates that he understood that justice and fairness require that the defendant receive back the money of her inheritance. The defendant emphasized that the parties had lived in the apartment for only 6 years, of which the plaintiff had planned a divorce for 5 years.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)It was further argued that in light of the wage gaps between the parties and the differences in earnings between them, together with the fact that the plaintiff's business was established during the marriage, the defendant should be awarded compensation and the value of the plaintiff's business, the redeemed study fund and the examination of the bank accounts should also be included in the balance of resources. In addition, she petitioned that the expenses incurred by the plaintiff for an annual appointment to a gym and a barwould be excluded from the joint expenses and the vehicles would be balanced.
- Each party denied the claims of the opposing party; the plaintiff emphasized that the defendant's claim should be dismissed because he had filed a property claim on his behalf. On the merits, the plaintiff approved the distribution of the sources of financing as claimed by the defendant in her lawsuit, but claimed that the apartment was registered in the name of the parties in equal parts, and that this is not a property that is included in the mass of assets for balancing resources, but rather a joint property to which the general laws apply. The plaintiff referred to the transfer of a hearing given in the matter of civil appeal 66/88 Tamar Decker v. Felix Decker, 34(1) 122. It was argued that the division proposals to which the defendant referred were made in the framework of mediation and therefore sponsorships, and that the plaintiff insisted that the parties jointly own equal parts of the apartment. It was argued that there were no large income gaps between the parties, that his business was a one-man business working from home, and that receipts were not deferred or expenses were incurred as claimed. It was claimed that the study fund was redeemed about two years before the rupture and was used to cover mandatory balances, there is no room for appointing an investigative accountant, and the accounting opinion that was prepared in the mediation should be adopted.
- The defendant in her statement of defense refused to dissolve the partnership in the apartment before balancing the resources, agreed that she should be obligated to return the sum of NIS 3,000 that she had withdrawn from the joint account after examining all the bank accounts and personal expenses of the plaintiff, as for the payment of the loan repayments, it was claimed that the defendant transferred the half to the plaintiff every month, and the plaintiff took the movables in which he was interested. With regard to usage fees, it was claimed that the plaintiff left of his own initiative and voluntarily and the conditions for charging the defendant with usage fees were not met. The defendant emphasized that prior to receiving the inheritance money, the parties had lived in a lease for about 10 years, and that she agreed to make use of the expert opinion regarding the balance of resources, along with the supplementation as her petition in her lawsuit.
- On December 16, 2024, a judgment was given effect to an agreement between the parties regarding time of stay, and a pre-trial was held in the remaining proceedings; at the end of the hearing, it was determined that the date of the rupture was on 01/05/2024; and since the parties agreed to make use of the opinion, the parties would contact the expert who prepared the opinion for them and present their claims regarding complements/amendments in order to obtain a supplementary opinion if required, and a court expert was appointed. As for the additional issues, it was ruled that the dissolution of the partnership would be delayed until there was a picture of the full economic map, and the remedy regarding the usage fees was deleted because no quantified and properly prepared claim was filed in this regard. The proceedings were set for the hearing of evidence.
- Copied from NevoThe court's expert, Avraham Rusnak, submitted an opinion dated March 19, 2025; According to the opinion, the average annual income difference between the parties is NIS 247,357 per year, before taxes, social security and social contributions, so that the net difference is about 50% of the aforementioned amount.
No opinion was submitted regarding the value of the plaintiff's business, as opposed to income gaps, and no supplementary request was made by any of the parties in this matter. In addition, despite the possibility of the parties contacting the expert to amend what was required in her opinion, no request or opinion was submitted in this matter as well, and in fact, the parties did not submit a copy of the requests to the expert (if any) to amend the opinion as they claimed before the court that it was required. Moreover, in its summaries / interrogation, the defendant also did not reiterate the claim, and therefore also in these matters; The defendant's arguments regarding the value of the plaintiff's business and regarding the amendment of the parties' expert opinion were abandoned.
- At the beginning of the hearing of the evidence, the parties reached understandings regarding the maintenance of the minors, with the consent of the parties, it was ruled that the maintenance of the minors would be NIS 1,900 and for their dormitory the sum of NIS 1,500; it was also ruled that during the period of military service/preparatory service/year of service/military service, the alimony would be reduced to one-third of their amount on the eve of their payment, and the section would be reduced to NIS 1,000; As for additional expenses, they would be divided between the parents, 70% of the plaintiff and 30% of the defendant, who would also bear all the expenses of the dog.
- On behalf of the plaintiff, exhibits file P/1 was filed and the plaintiff testified, on behalf of the defendant an exhibits file was submitted and supplements to the file exhibits P/1-N/3 respectively and the defendant testified. At the end of the hearing, the parties requested to submit lists of reference to case law regarding compensation due to differences in earnings. The references were submitted.
- In the plaintiff's summaries it was argued that section 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973, does not apply to the dissolution of a property partnership and it is not possible by virtue of it to determine a property division different from the registration. It was further argued that the manner in which the rights were registered constitutes evidence of the existence of a written agreement between the parties in accordance with the provision of section 5(a)(3) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973, and it is not possible to determine any other registered division. It was claimed that the apartment was purchased jointly, and the parties had decided that the apartment would be shared. It was further argued that the exceptional conditions for unequal division were not met. It was argued that the judgments to which the defendant referred were irrelevant because the circumstances there were special circumstances. The plaintiff detailed the differences and emphasized that it is not possible to "color" the inheritance funds after they have been deposited in the joint account and used.
It was further argued that the defendant's share of the rent receipts from the inheritance apartment (before its sale) was also deposited in the joint account, so that the defendant saw the funds as joint and this was the intention of the party during the marriage, as well as with regard to the rights in the apartment. The court was asked to reject the argument that the joint account was a "conduit" for the transfer of the funds since the funds could not be tracked.