(1) to determine assets other than those specified in section 5 whose value will not be balanced between the spouses;
(2) To determine that the balance of the value of the assets, in whole or in part, will not be half by half, but according to another ratio to be determined taking into account, inter alia, future assets, including the earning capacity of each spouse;
(3) To determine that the balance of the value of the assets, in whole or in part, will not be according to their values at the time of the balancing of resources, but according to their values at an earlier date to be determined;
(4) To determine that the balance of resources will not relate to the assets that the couple had at the time of the balance of resources, but to the assets they had at an earlier date to be determined."
- In order for the provision of section 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 to apply, it is necessary to prove "special circumstances that justify it". See the language of the section above.
- In this case, the defendant argued that special circumstances justifying this were the use of inheritance funds, the amount of the inheritance funds, the financing of the equity and the entire renovation from the inheritance funds – while the plaintiff took part only in the joint payment of the repayments of the mortgage-secured loan, the value of the apartment, and the earnings gaps between the parties. It was further argued that the period of the marriage, during which most of the parties lived in rent, should be taken into account in contrast to the short period of the parties' residence in the apartment and the proximity to the date of the rupture, the financing of the surrogacy process with funds at the expense of inheritance and the redemption of the study fund for this purpose, as well as the laws of honesty, fairness and justice. The plaintiff argued that there are no exceptional circumstances that justify a half-by-way division, it was argued that the income gaps between the parties are not high and that the Decker rule should be applied, which states that the registration of the rights constitutes a waiver and a completed gift, especially since during the course of their joint life the parties viewed the apartment as a joint apartment as well as the inheritance money, and as evidence, the rent receipts from the inheritance apartment (the consideration for which is the consideration that is the subject of the claim here) were deposited in the joint account. It was also claimed that the parties had only joint accounts (excluding the business account).
- In Family Appeal (Haifa) 5420-10-21 v. B., [Nevo] dated April 18, 2022, the court made a separation between the rights registered in the name of the couple and the right to share the proceeds after the dissolution of the partnership, as part of a balance of resources. And this is what it was said there, the Honorable Justice Jayusi, on page 30, paragraph 31 of the judgment:
"...In contrast to what was written by me in Family Appeal 61008-06-13 v. M. A. v. Y. A., [Nevo], and taking into account the circumstances of the case, the significant "power disparities" before me, and "the mode of actual conduct of the spouses", as the Honorable Justice Rubinstein put it, there is a need to balance the financial resource that will be obtained from the dissolution of the partnership of the residential apartment. It should be emphasized that this is not an unequal division of the residential apartment, since it is clear that the dissolution of the partnership in it will be carried out according to the registration and in accordance with the property laws set forth inthe Real Estate Law. We are concerned with the division of the funds that will be received after the dissolution of the partnership in the apartment, and these must be carried out at the said rate..."
- Section 8(2) The Property Relations Law, 5733-1973 is an exception to the rule; an exception as its name implies, and it is stated that "its use impairs legal certainty, the ability to predict the outcome of a proceeding and therefore the ability to reach agreements, the ability to provide advice by attorneys, and more", the Honorable Judge Silman inFamily Appeal (Haifa) 5420-10-21 A v. B, [Nevo] dated April 18, 2022, page 35, paragraph 6 of the judgment. However, in the same proceeding, a claim was accepted for the use of section 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 with respect to inheritance funds deposited by the wife in a joint account because "parallel assimilation was denied". See there paragraph 30 of the line for the transfer of the venue of the hearing of the Honorable Justice Silman and paragraph 2 of the linefor the transfer of the venue of the hearing of the Honorable Justice Attias:
"...Since the respondent's inheritance asset was not assimilated into the joint property, it is justified that the rights that the appellant received by virtue of inheritance will also not be included in the balance. This result can be reached by applying the provisions of sections 8(1) or 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973."