"Among the parameters that assist the court in examining the intention to share are the duration of the relationship and the length of the joint life; Is this the first marital relationship between the parties; the working patterns of the parties and the existence of economic dependence; joint children or their absence; the degree of participation in obtaining sources of livelihood and income, such as running a joint business, a joint venture, etc.; The sources of financing of the assets in dispute, the timing and nature of their acquisition, etc. Additional indications according to the circumstances ... In addition, the relationship between common-law spouses is governed by the principle of good faith. Their behavior towards each other must be done honestly and fairly, and in this framework, importance should be attributed to considerations relating to the protection of weak parties in the family, fairness, equality, justice, and more."
- In other words, to summarize the aforesaid, in order to substantiate her claim, the plaintiff must prove that the relationship between them met the definition of common-law couples, while carefully examining whether the parties intended to apply to themselves most of the civil-economic consequences of the institution of marriage, while examining evidence that indicates their intentions, and the burden of proof placed on her shoulders is high. However, the case law determined that in the case of a couple who are prevented from marrying, the standard of evidence should be lowered.
- In our case, I was under the impression that there was a normal, good relationship between the parties , the defendant loved the plaintiff's children and was attached to them, invested in them, spent time with them and pampered the plaintiff and her children, the parties helped each other in various ways, however, I did not get the impression that the parties tied their lives "in a knot of life's fate" (see other municipal applications 621/69 Nessis v. Yoster, IsrSC 24(1) 617, 619 (1970) (hereinafter, the Nassis case)) and that the parties sought to apply to the relationship between them most of the economic rights and obligations of the institution of marriage.
- 00As detailed, the couple are cohen and divorced, and as such, they are prevented from marrying, and in the circumstances of the specific case at hand, the fact that the parties could not marry stood in the way of the relationship between them, and led to the fact that they still had doubts as to the future of their relationship. These are people belonging to the ultra-Orthodox sector, for whom the fact that they live together without marriage according to the laws of Moses and Israel bothered them, and especially the defendant; they were bothered by the lack of social and familial recognition, the defendant was greatly disturbed by the religious ostracism, and the fact that he was ostracized in the synagogue from his duties as a kohen and could not go up to the Torah as a kohen, and most of all the desire of the defendant (if not of the parties) to have a child and the implications of having a child together from a religious point of view. I was under no impression that the parties put their doubts about the relationship aside and ended up saying to live the rest of their lives together forever.
0