The plaintiff did not invest money in the purchase of the apartment (despite the witness's claim that the plaintiff had the financial ability to do so). The aforementioned apartment was not registered in her name, there was no intention to register in her name, and no obligation relating to the apartment.
The plaintiff claimed that "the apartment was purchased in the amount of ILS 1,130,000, part of which was paid by means of a loan in the amount of ILS 100,000 that the defendant's father took on preferential terms, and in fact the repayment of the loan was paid from the plaintiff's account" (paragraph 26). The plaintiff did not deny in the reply the defendant's claims that the equity for the purchase of the apartment came from the defendant's personal sources, from funds he had saved before he moved to live with the plaintiff or became acquainted with her, and that he was the one who took the mortgage and bears the repayments and received the rent. However, in her summary, the plaintiff claimed for the first time that the defendant did not prove that the property was purchased with his own money, and claimed that in fact the property was accumulated during the relationship, from shared resources, since she bore the expenses of maintaining the house, and this enabled the defendant to save money. I found it difficult to raise this argument for the first time in the summaries, and I even found it to be rejected; As stated, the burden of proof is that the parties are common-law partners and the alleged partnership is on the plaintiff's shoulders (the Shahar v. Friedman case) and the plaintiff did not prove the sources of the purchase of the property, and the later claim, which is inconsistent with the claims in the statement of claim, causes discomfort. Moreover, the apartment was purchased six months after the defendant moved in with the plaintiff, and no financial ability to accumulate the initial capital, approximately ILS 300,000 in six months, was proven.
- With regard to the loan from the defendant's parents, I have not found that the return of the number of loan repayments is sufficient to prove sharing in the property. The plaintiff testified that she did not know the details of the loan and what the defendant had agreed with his parents, she did not personally commit to his parents to repay the loan, nor did she have any proof that the money was used for the purchase of the apartment. The defendant showed printouts according to which he transferred the initial capital out of funds he had saved in Menora Mivtachim, and that after payment for the property, he had a balance of ILS 85,000 left in his account (Appendices 2-3 to the National Insurance Regulations).
Moreover, the plaintiff repaid the loan money to his parents in the total amount of a maximum of ILS 13,000, less than half of the payments that he had to repay during the period when the parties lived together. Admittedly, the defendant did not prove that he returned the money to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff admitted in the affidavit that the defendant would have transferred money to her through the checks of his clients as well as money in cash (paragraph 8 of the affidavit), so his claim is not unfounded, and in general his testimony was credible, even if he testified dramatically. Moreover, as stated, I did not find that with the payment of ILS 13,000 it was proven that the plaintiff purchased entitlement to half of the defendant's apartment. The defendant also gave money to the plaintiff, and there was no denial on her part when he claimed that he paid for emotional treatments for her and her children. The parties helped each other in the manner of a couple who lived together, however, they did not consolidate their accounts, and maintained a separation whereby the plaintiff was responsible for the rented apartment and its expenses, her income and the fixed expenses of her children, and the defendant, the owner of the property he accumulated, repaid the monthly mortgage, collected the rent and completed the balance. Each party was responsible for its own income and expenses, with the defendant transferring a monthly sum to the plaintiff, and as appears from the account statements, an amount of between ILS 2,500 and ILS 3,000. Thus, I did not find in this any proof of economic cooperation, and no partnership at all, all the more so in circumstances in which there are question marks on the part of the parties and at least of the defendant (with the plaintiff's knowledge) about the relationship.
- The plaintiff, a practical and energetic woman, assisted the defendant, who lacked technological and practical skills, in bureaucratic matters, but I did not get the impression that there was an intention to share and that this would apply a partnership to the defendant's property. I am of the opinion that the plaintiff's assistance to the defendant was done with good intentions in order to assist, and it is possible, with the knowledge that the defendant supports and assists her financially, both for herself and for her children, and that in the future he will help her financially in purchasing an apartment for her, however, I have not learned from this about the intention of sharing.
- Additional evidence of the intention of the parties can be learned from the correspondence that took place between the parties and was attached by the defendant. As stated, the defendant moved in with the plaintiff only in April 2021. The defendant does not deny that he was in a relationship with the plaintiff prior to that, but no evidence was brought by any of the parties that there was a conspiracy of fate or sharing of any kind between the parties. The defendant began searching for an apartment even before the joint move, and on March 14, 2021, the plaintiff sent the defendant a WhatsApp message in which she wrote to him, "Earlier, in the midst of all the chaos of work and children, I called the realtor to find out about an apartment for you... Then a message to ----'s post...--- (=her daughter) is telling me that you are also worried about this now?? Are you bored?? So be quiet and quick, I care about you" (Appendix 7 to the appeal against the decision of the Defendant Registrar). In other words, even before the defendant moved in with the plaintiff, the defendant began to search for an apartment for him; "An apartment for you" "I care about you", and her daughter is under the impression that the plaintiff is doing the defendant a favor. In other words, from this notice as well, we can learn how the parties and the family viewed the relationship between the parties; not cooperatively, the plaintiff is assisting the defendant, and we are not dealing with any thinking that this is the plaintiff's apartment, but rather an apartment for the defendant and the plaintiff but assisting him, otherwise it is clear that such a conversation would not have taken place.
- In the transcript of the conversation that was attached by the plaintiff, I also found support that there was no intention to share the apartment. The plaintiff attached a transcript of a conversation between the parties, a conversation that, according to its content (and the prima facie date of its existence), took place after the plaintiff informed the defendant of her desire to separate. The plaintiff asked the defendant to announce when he was leaving the apartment in which they lived together, and asked him to seek mediation with a third party in order to talk about the separation and the "financial issue" between them, and emphasized to him that he had promised her that he would take care of her the day after (p. 5), and the defendant did not deny his intention to give her anything. However, throughout the conversation with him, there is no word on the part of the plaintiff about the apartment and there is no demand to receive half of it, but rather it appears that she is asking, and the defendant is even interested, to give her something.
- It was argued by the plaintiff that although the parties wanted to make a prenuptial agreement, however, beyond the fact that the prenuptial agreement was not perfected and there was no discussion of what its content would be, there is a difficulty with the argument given that it emerged that the plaintiff was the one who wanted to make a prenuptial agreement, and not the defendant, and the plaintiff admitted that the defendant evaded this and did not cooperate. The plaintiff also expressed the desire to draw up an agreement after the purchase of the apartment, and not before it, and according to her, before purchasing the property in her name. "You have to move forward with a common-law agreement for the next property" and it should be emphasized - the next asset. Not due to the purchase of the previous property. Not to regulate sharing in it. Rather, before or for the purpose of purchasing the plaintiff's property.
- Moreover, as stated, I was not under the impression that the subjective intention of the parties was to apply to them the duties and rights of a married couple, and I was under the impression that they maintained a separation of property between them, however, if there could have been any doubt as to the period from the date of the defendant's move to live with the plaintiff, then no indications of any partnership were given prior to the joint move.
- I do not find that after a period of marriage and joint life of six months, it is possible to apply a partnership to an external property, which was purchased by definition (and there is no dispute about this) for investment purposes, a non-family property, which was purchased from the resources of the defendant, who took out a mortgage in his name, paid for all the expenses involved in the purchase, and purchased a property for investment for the first time at the age of 45. Nor do I find that there was evidence that there was evidence that for a period of two years of joint life, in an apartment rented in the plaintiff's name, in which the defendant alone repaid the mortgage loan payments, collected the service fees and bore the difference between the amounts alone, and that any evidence was raised of an intention to share a specific period during this period.
In other words, I did not see that the intentions of a legal economic partnership between the parties that proves that the parties were common-law partners, and the presumption of partnership was not proven. Thus, I also did not find that there was a specific sharing of the property by virtue of the assistance that the plaintiff gave to the defendant and the return of some of the loan repayments to the defendant's parents, or any other assistance.
- I will mention that this is an investment property and not a residential apartment, which raises the burden of proof to a higher threshold than proof of sharing with respect to a residential apartment. Added to this is the manner in which the property is registered, which is the first evidence of ownership, and the burden of proving otherwise is on the plaintiff's shoulders, and in our case, the burden is high, especially when the parties are not married.
- The evidence shows that there was indeed a relationship between the parties , but, as I noted above, I did not get the impression that the parties tied their fate to each other because they began to share their property, their home and their lives. At most, it was the intention of the parties that the defendant would purchase an investment asset for himself, and that the plaintiff would later purchase an investment asset for herself, each of which would have its own property. The parties lived together for a short period of time, about two years, and maintained separation. Each continued to manage his own property and financial affairs. The parties did not open a joint account, and the defendant would transfer money to the plaintiff every month. No evidence was brought for any partnership other than living together for this period, and the financial assistance that the defendant gave to the plaintiff from time to time and the bureaucratic assistance that the plaintiff gave to the defendant, as well as the repayments of the few loans.
Each side supported the other in its own way and with the intention that each side would move forward and purchase an asset for itself, and not a joint property. I did not find that the couple were common-law partners, I did not find that the presumption of partnership applied and that there was no specific partnership. As stated, the case law requires us to exercise extreme caution before declaring a couple as common-law couples, and the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof to prove that the parties met the tests set out in the case law, and mainly, as stated and detailed, I did not get the impression that the parties "applied to themselves most of the civil-economic consequences of the institution of marriage... without getting marriage status."
- In summary, the lawsuit is dismissed. In these circumstances, I find that the plaintiff should be obligated to pay the defendant's expenses in the sum of ILS 25,000, which will be paid within sixty days.
- The judgment will be published by omitting identifying details.
Granted today, January 27, 2026, in the absence of the parties.