| In the Supreme Court sitting as a Court of Civil Appeals |
Civil Appeal. 48399-09-24
| Before: | The Honorable Judge Dafna Barak-Erez
The Honorable Judge David Mintz The Honorable Judge Yechiel Kasher
|
| The Applicant: | Anonymous |
|
Against
|
|
| Respondent: | Anonymous |
|
Application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Central District Court of Lod dated July 4, 2024 in Family Appeal 36827-12-23 [Nevo] given by the Honorable Vice President V. Plaut and Justices Z. Weizmann and Z. Gradstein Pepkin
|
|
| Date of Meeting: | 26 Cheshvan 5786 (November 17, 2025)
|
| On behalf of the applicant:
|
Adv. Imi Bechor Buni, Adv. Liron Eisenthal, Adv. Alona Sinai
|
| On behalf of the Attorney General: |
Adv. Ruth Gordin |
Judgment
Judge Dafna Barak-Erez:
- A common-law couple wishes to bring an agreement that regulates the property relationship between them for the approval of the Family Court. At the time of making the agreement, the couple considers the possibility that they will marry in the future, and notes that even though they have not yet decided to do so, they wish to include in the agreement between them an explicit stipulation that the arrangements set forth in it will continue to apply even if they marry each other. In other words, They want to draw up a single agreement that will bind them to look ahead, whether they remain in common-law status or get married. Does the law allow them to do so, or perhaps - in the event that the couple wishes to marry - they will have to make another agreement, which will be acceptable to both of them at the time, and reapprove it? This is the question that was presented for our decision.
- We will preface by saying that the source of the litigation is the joint will of the spouses before us, and in this sense there is no real "dispute" between the parties. The two are seeking to approve an agreement that regulates their property relationship in full, as they are common-law couples, so that it will continue to apply to them even if they choose to marry. The previous courts were of the opinion that this was impossible, and in view of the dispute regarding the issue, it came to our doorstep.
- It should be noted at this stage that the starting point of our judgment, as also appears from the manner in which the proceeding was conducted, is that leave to appeal should be granted in the present case and the appeal should be heard on its merits, taking into account the principled nature of the issue (see and compare: LLC 8063/14 Palmoni v. Palmoni, paragraph 12 [Nevo] (July 13, 2015) (hereinafter: P"m 8063/14); Ltd. 1983/23 Anonymous vs. Anonymous, paragraph 2 [Nevo] (10.8.2023)). To this it should be added, as detailed below, that in practice, conflicting decisions were made on this issue in other proceedings conducted in the Family Courts and the District Courts, and this is another reason that justifies our appeal to it. Accordingly, the applicant will now be called The Appellant.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The Normative Framework