a claim regarding child support and alimony (in claims after the settlement of litigation 444);
and a claim for the division of the joint property is the claim that is the subject of this proceeding.
- On September 21, 2025, the man filed a claim to renew contact with the children (in claims after the settlement of litigation 666). In this framework, Dr. Kibenson was appointed as the court's expert, and today the children are in the process of renewing their relationship, while balancing between the lifestyle according to which they grew up and the new lifestyle that the father chose.
- On September 9, 2026, the woman petitioned to join the corporations that the man manages as additional defendants. filed an objection to this and announced that he agrees to the inclusion of a company in a tax appeal The wife announced that she would agree to this, subject to the man disclosing all the required data regarding the other companies, and on October 26, 2025, I instructed that at this stage only this company would be added as a defendant.
- On December 28, 2025, a pre-trial meeting was held, in which the time of stay was regulated, arguments were raised regarding the temporary alimony and instructions were given regarding the manner of clarifying the scope of the joint property, including the submission of property affidavits and a notice regarding the identity of the experts proposed by each party.
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916
- 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, Pis. D. 51 (2) On December 13, 2026, the children's temporary alimony was awarded and set at NIS 28,000. The man's request for leave to appeal was rejected, and the woman's request for leave to appeal was partially granted, so that NIS 4,000 per month was also awarded as temporary alimony for six months.
- On January 5, 2026, the woman petitioned to order a one-time payment on account of the balance of resources in the amount of NIS 500,000 at the expense of the balance of resources, in order to enable her to support herself and conduct the legal proceedings. On January 11, 2026, the man announced that he objected to this, on the basis of the rule that all property must be balanced together.
- On January 13, 2026, the wife petitioned for an injunction in relation to the vacation apartment in a manner that would not allow the respondent to live in it or rent it out to others, since it is an apartment intended for vacation with the children. The respondent objected to this on the grounds that it was common property that should be allowed to be used in a yielding manner. In this regard, I determined on December 13, 2025 that at this stage the parties will coordinate the dates of use of the vacation home.
- On January 13, 2026, the woman filed a repetition for the addition of defendants in relation to all the corporations in which the man holds shares. This, inter alia, was claimed that the man transferred the shares held by AA in a tax appeal to a foreign company called XX Ltd in a manner that completely changed the system of holding shares in all the companies in the cluster. This was done without submitting an affidavit of property, despite the decision made in this regard. According to her, the inclusion of the companies as a party to the proceeding is necessary for the purpose of exposing the entirety of the assets that accumulated during the marriage, since it is not possible for him to transfer all of his rights in the various companies without informing the court. She also claimed that the man allows himself to use the companies' funds for his personal life, spending about NIS 200,000 a month for pleasures (luxury nightclubs, buying brands, flights abroad, etc.) without limits. It argued that if the companies are not joined, an undesirable situation will be created that will allow the respondent to continue to smuggle assets, to dim the status of his rights in the various companies, and to mix his assets and rights with those of the other companies.
- On February 1, 2026, the man's response was submitted, according to which he objected to the addition of the defendants, with the exception of XX Ltd. According to him, this company was established in March 2025 (before the date of the rupture), according to the recommendation of the accountant, due to tax advantages and in order to encourage loans from investors from abroad who are afraid to invest in Israel in light of the security and diplomatic situation. According to him, this is not asset smuggling since the new company is under his full control. argues that the merger of the companies will not add a real evidentiary layer and will lead to heavy litigation complexity, widening the front and prolonging the proceeding unnecessarily, and bringing third parties into the proceeding, while in the subsidiaries there are additional partners, the inclusion of which is liable to harm the day-to-day conduct and even cause damage to the partners who are not involved in the proceeding.
- Copied from NevoOn January 14, 2016, the woman petitioned for the appointment of a special manager and/or receiver in relation to the companies controlled by the man; alternatively for the issuance of an injunction prohibiting the disposition of the bank accounts of all these companies; to instruct the Registrar of Companies to produce the documents for the transfer of shares from AA in a tax appeal to the new company XX Ltd., stating the consideration received as a result of this transfer; in addition, a petitioner for the appointment of an investigative accountant In order to evaluate the value of these corporations. This, inter alia, was made on the grounds that the transfer of shares that the man made from AA in a tax appeal to the new company, was done in violation of the foreclosure order that was given in relation to his shares, in a manner that completely changed the system of holding shares in all the companies in the cluster, is a clear asset smuggling.
It further notes that despite the fact that he has many assets in his name, companies and accounts worth an estimated value of millions, the man began to raise puzzling claims that he is in debt, a claim that is made only for the purposes of the legal process and raises serious questions as to its veracity. She repeatedly claims that the man uses companies to manage his private life in an ostentatious and limitless manner.