It should also be noted that section 8 of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973, grants the court the authority to deviate from the general arrangement in section 5 in one of four ways: to determine assets that are additional to the external assets that are excluded by section 5 and that will be taken out of the mass of assets for balancing resources; to order a balance of resources not in a "half-for-half" manner; and to determine that the balance of resources will be done with respect to assets that were owned by either of the spouses at the time Prior to the date of the rupture and also to determine that the balance of the value of the assets, in whole or in part, will not be according to their equivalents at the time of the balance of resources, but according to their equivalents at an earlier date to be determined.
- According to case law, inheritance funds that have been mixed or assimilated into common property are shared. Family Appeal (Haifa) 61008-06-13 M.A. v. N.I.A. [Nevo] of June 11, 2014, ruled, paragraph 39 of the judgment: that both due to the mixing and merging of "external" assets in joint properties and due to the laws of gifting, when the rights of the joint residential apartment were registered in the name of the couple in equal parts, and there is no prenuptial agreement or agreement that stipulates otherwise, it does not matter What is the source of financing the purchase of the rights and the rights are in equal parts.
0
It was also stated that where one of the spouses paid more than the other spouse in order to finance the purchase of the apartment, it is a gift that was completed with the registration of the rights in the name of the spouses. In other words, the difference in investment is a completed gift. It was also stated that in light of the registration, the source of the funds that each spouse invested in the purchase of the property should not be traced. An application for leave to appeal against the transfer of a hearing venue was denied, see Tax Appeal 4480/14 Anonymous v. Anonymous, [Nevo] of July 30, 2014. The court there, the Honorable Judge Jayussi, referred to the Decker ruling – Civil Appeal 66/88 Tamar Decker v. Felix Decker, 34(1) 122. See also Family Appeal (Haifa) 38445-08-17 Anonymous v. Anonymous, [Nevo] of 05/10/20218, paragraph 47 of the linefor the transfer of a hearing venue of the Honorable Judge Sharabi.