Therefore, in the circumstances of the couple, in which the parties, and especially the defendant, acted with doubts as to their joint future, I am of the opinion that the fact that the parties could not marry, does not lower the evidentiary standard for examining the question of whether they were common-law partners, but rather constitutes an additional layer in examining the question as to the intention of the parties as to the relationship between them and its essence.
- The parties lived together, for a relatively short time (about two years until the date of separation) but it cannot be said that they ran a joint household; the lease was in the plaintiff's name , like the other obligations for the payments of the housekeeping expenses, which she bore directly. The defendant did not directly bear any payment and would have transferred a monthly sum to the plaintiff for his participation in these expenses. As noted in the Nessis case, the foundation of running a joint household is not merely "out of personal need, comfort, financial feasibility or a practical arrangement, but as a natural result of joint family life, as is customary and customary between husband and wife who are in a relationship of life fate." At this stage of the parties' lives and relationship, I believe that the management of the joint household stemmed from and served the different needs of both parties, but it has not yet met a shared destiny and economic and legal obligation.
Whether for the purpose of examining the partnership there is a need for a one-stage test, according to which the determination that the parties were common-law partners means a common-law partnership, or whether there is a need for a two-stage test, according to which after the determination that the parties were common-law partners, it is necessary to examine whether there was a partnership between the parties, I have not found that the parties meet the definition of common-law partners and I have not found that there was a common-law partnership between them. I did not find that the parties had a marital partnership, whereby they agreed to apply to the relationship between them most of the financial rights and obligations of the institution of marriage, as appears from the subjective aspect of the relationship that existed between them.
- There was a separation of property between the parties, with each managing his own accounts and his own economic affairs. The parties did not have a joint account, and the plaintiff did not prove her claim that she managed the defendant's accounts and the fact that she knew the numbers of the defendant's accounts or advised him to close a bank account do not constitute any evidence of sharing. Thus, even if the defendant assisted the plaintiff and allowed her to use his credit card or to finance certain needs for her or her children, voluntarily, this still does not constitute evidence of financial sharing, and I am under the impression that this is assistance or non-binding conduct for assistance on a regular basis. I did not see any economic dependence or any economic connection between the parties.
- I found a difficulty with the fact that the plaintiff did not claim that all the property accumulated during the course of the joint life, the social rights and the savings accumulated should be balanced (which it can be assumed that given that she worked as an employee in all these years, in a senior position, more rights were accumulated in her name) but rather claimed only half of the apartment, and in practice, her claim is for a specific sharing of the defendant's property and without the intention of sharing her assets.
- The plaintiff attached as evidence the fact that she helped the defendant arrange many things, including with the insurance agent, but even though she worked with an insurance agent who specializes in financial planning, and despite the fact that she spoke with him regarding the defendant's pension and life insurance, I did not see that there was a discussion procedure or that an order was given to register the plaintiff as a beneficiary. However, I will emphasize that no information was given on the matter, and it is not known who the beneficiary is, but, on the face of it, there is silence on the matter in order to show that the plaintiff is apparently not the beneficiary.
- With regard to the purchase of the apartment itself, the plaintiff testified that there was no intention to register the apartment in her name, and there was no intention to jointly take loans for the purpose of purchasing it. The plaintiff claimed that the parties' intention was to purchase an apartment in the defendant's name, and later to sell it and buy another apartment in her name, thus improving the apartments, while the parties would enjoy an exemption from purchase tax to which each of them is entitled.
This intention was not proven, and even the witness who was brought to support these claims was not convinced that this was what was agreed upon between the parties. The witness's knowledge was general, without describing any specific situation, or statement in any context, and she could only say that the plaintiff greatly assisted the defendant in her actions regarding the purchase of the apartment, but she could not say anything about the financial aspect that was conducted between the parties.