It should be added that a spouse who claims that the registration does not reflect the status of the rights correctly, and who makes a claim contrary to the registration, has a very heavy burden to prove his claims, and the source of the financing cannot change the couple's intention at the time of registering the apartment as was done according to their wishes at the time.
- In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant's inheritance funds were used to finance the equity for the purchase of the apartment and then for its renovation and repayment of part of the loan promised in the mortgage – but the rights in the apartment were registered in the names of the parties in equal parts; This is the place to note that the defendant originally inherited an apartment and the funds that are the subject of this judgment are money in exchange for the inheritance apartment – (hereinafter and hereinafter "the inheritance money").
- The rule is that if you have heard that the rights in the apartment were registered in the name of the couple in equal parts, then such an asset should not be included in the mass of assets for balancing resources - this means that section 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 will not apply to it, since it concerns the balance of resources and not the dissolution of partnership (since there are those who believe that the registration is in fact an agreement between the parties as required by section 5(a)(3) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 or an asset in which the parties have agreed to dissolve the partnership as per the registration); Know that the determination that the registration excludes the asset from the total mass of assets for balancing resources is a determination that can be contradicted insofar as it proves an intention to share or otherwise.
In view of this, the defendant's counsel argued in her summaries, page 51, line 38 onwards that:
"I believe that the dispute we have here is purely legal, and therefore the solution should be as follows: There is no dispute that the plaintiff received inheritance money in the amount of NIS 1,137,500, nor is there any dispute that the apartment was registered in the name of both parties. The only dispute here is whether clause 8.2 will be used or not will be used, and the social cling to the Decker rule, which sanctifies the registration of the apartment. Now, in my property lawsuit, I have brought a series of rulings that, in my opinion, and those who read them carefully, gnawed at the Dakar ruling...Therefore, our petition here does not say that the parties' apartment should be divided equally, registered in the name of both parties, and this will be done. I ask that the inheritance money, of course, be returned to the lady and then half-and-half...Conceptually, that's what we're petitioning for."
- I accept this statement; similar things were said inTax Appeal 1955/17 Anonymous v. Anonymous, [Nevo] dated April 18, 2017. The background to this is the fact that the transfer ofa hearing venue was given prior to the enactment of Amendment No. 4 to the Property Relations Law, 5769-2008 (Proposed Property Relations between Spouses (Amendment No. 4) (Advance of the Date for Balancing Resources), 5767-2007 Bills - Knesset 163, 240, 244 23 Tammuz 5767, 09/07/2007; See also Family Appeal (Center) 55308-09-22 8 v. 1. H., [Nevo] dated 12/07/2023;
- Hence, the defendant's main argument is that the court has the authority to make use of section 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973, and to divert a dispute "half for half" from the money for the apartment – which is one of the ways in which the court was authorized to deviate from the general arrangement in section 5 of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973. In our case, were the conditions for the application of the provisions of section 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 to the money for the apartment?
- I will preface the end of the beginning and say that I happened to find the answer here in the affirmative, and I will elaborate;
- Section 8 of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 573-1973 states (my emphasis):
"If the court or tribunal sees special circumstances that justify it, it may, at the request of one of the spouses – if the financial relationship was not ruled in a judgment for dissolution of marriage – to do one or more of the following within the framework of the balance of resources: