Claims after the Litigation Settlement (Jerusalem) 17102-05-24 Anonymous v. Anonymous

Prior to a lawsuit in which the plaintiff petitions to declare that she is entitled to be the owner of half of the rights in the property registered in the defendant's name (hereinafter - the property/apartment), given that it was purchased during the period in which they were common-law partners, as well as the intention of the parties that it will be joint; The petitioner further petitions that after recognition of this right, the dissolution of the partnership in the apartment will be carried out. 

1. The plaintiff is divorced and has four children, a CEO of a ------- company; the defendant is single and --- by profession. Both sides come from within the ultra-Orthodox sector.  The parties do not have children together.
2. The defendant Cohen, and this fact is relevant to his case. Both parties declared that they could not marry each other, in view of the prohibition that applied to Cohen to marry a divorced woman.
3. The parties met in 2016, when they lived next door to the city of ----- and developed a relationship. In February 2021, the plaintiff moved in with her children in ------, and a few months later, in April 2021, the defendant moved in with them in her rented apartment (paragraph 9 of her statement of claim, paragraph 4 of the affidavit).
4. In November 2021, about six months after the defendant moved in with the plaintiff, the defendant purchased the property in dispute, in --- settlement , a property known as a block ---- a plot ---- by the -------- company.
5. This property was purchased for investment purposes, and its cost was ILS 1,130,000. The sources of financing were from the defendant's initial capital in the amount of approximately ILS 300,000 and the balance was paid through a mortgage loan, which was taken by the defendant and the monthly repayment was paid by him.  The apartment was rented out and the rent was paid into the defendant's account, who even testified that there was a gap in the payment between the rent and the amount of the mortgage loan.
6. Close to this date, the defendant even took out a loan from his parents (hereinafter - the loan). His parents transferred him the sum of ILS 100,000, of which ILS 40,000 was given as a gift.  There is a dispute between the parties regarding the purpose of the loan and the manner of shutdown, and this issue will be discussed below.
7. The parties separated in December 2023 (the circumstances of the separation were not specified on behalf of either of them). A month after the separation, the claim was filed by the plaintiff.
8. To summarize the parties' argument, the plaintiff claims that the parties were common-law partners from June 2016 until the 00th day.00.2023 and managed a joint household. According to her, the property was purchased during their life together, with the intention of sharing, when the plaintiff invested her energy in purchasing, renovating and handling the property's affairs as is the custom of the owners, and the defendant "rested on his laurels".  In addition, according to her, she bore from her account a loan repayment in the amount of ILS 1,300 per month, all with the knowledge that it was a joint property of the parties.  She further argued that the parties' intention was to first purchase a property in the defendant's name, then to sell it, and in return to purchase another apartment in her name, thus taking advantage of the purchase tax benefit on a single residential apartment, and to increase the mass and value of their assets.
9. The defendant denies the plaintiff's claims, and argues on the other hand that there was a relationship between the parties, but they were not recognized as common-law partners, and the parties, and in particular him, had doubts regarding the relationship, especially in view of the religious ostracism he experienced and the inability to bring a joint child with the plaintiff into the world (I will clarify that the defendant, being religious, claimed that he could not bring into the world a joint child who would meet the religious definition of "desecration" as a child of a priest and a divorcee). He further claimed that the parties practiced a complete separation of property over their property, including the property that was purchased.  The plaintiff did indeed assist him, as he helped her in other matters, but this does not give her half of the property.

The defendant further claimed that he did not need a loan from his parents in order to purchase the property, since he had sufficient funds in his account for the payment of the initial capital.  The loan was given in view of the fact that his parents wanted to transfer money to him as a gift, and for this purpose they took a loan on favorable terms, and therefore he asked them to take the full possible loan, so that it would finance the trip abroad with the plaintiff and her children.  The repayment of the loan was paid by him, and from his account, and sometimes he forgot to return the repayment to his parents, and he asked the plaintiff to transfer the loan repayment to his parents, given her greater access to a bank account (the defendant is not a technologist), and the defendant returned the amount to her by transferring the amount from his account to her account or in cash.