at pp. 5620/24 at pp. 17735-09-24 Anonymous v. Anonymous

In a Tax Appeal  5620/24

 inTax Appeal 17735-09-24

E: Judge  Yael Willner

1. We have before us two motions for leave to appeal, the hearing of which was consolidated, against the judgment of the Central-Lod District Court (the Justices) Z. Weizmann, Y.  Moskowitz andSunday Autumn) on appeal Family 15734-10-23 and on appeal Family 45801-12-23 of June 14, 2024, in which the parties' appeals against the judgment of the Petah Tikva Family Court were rejected in principle (the judge B.  Yizraeli) in lawsuits After the Litigation Settlement 9319-04-21 of September 5, 2023.  In this judgment, a claim was accepted in part The Applicant in the Tax Appeal 17735-09-24 (hereinafter: The Man), for half of the rights in five apartments registered in the name of The Applicant in Tax Appeal 5620/24 (hereinafter: The Woman), according to the specific sharing rule.
2. I will say already that The applications before us raise issues of principle relating to the nature of the specific partnership rule. Therefore, I would suggest to my colleagues that we use our authority under Regulation 149(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018, which also applies to applications for leave to appeal in family matters by virtue of Regulation 44 of the Family Court (Procedures) Regulations, 5781-2020, and we will consider the applications for leave to appeal as if permission had been granted and appeals were filed in accordance with the permission granted.

Factual Background

3. The Man and the Woman They were married on August 19, 1996 and separated after about 23 years, in 2019; During their life together, they had three children. A few weeks after the parties' marriage, the woman was given two plots of agricultural land in the city of Nes Ziona as a gift from her father, and they were registered in her name.  About six years later, in 2002, one of the plots was redesignated as residential; The matter of the proceeding is in this section only, and it will be read below The Land.
4. At the end of 2002, the woman signed a combination transaction with a contractor, in which she sold him part of the land, in exchange for seven apartments in a building to be built on it (the building or its construction will also be referred to hereinafter: The Project). Later, the woman sold two of those seven apartments (hereinafter: The two apartments sold) and in exchange for them was transferred to a joint account of the man and the woman - so that she still owned five apartments in the project (hereinafter: Apartments in Nes Ziona or The Apartments).  Over the years, the apartments were rented out in Nes Ziona, and the couple lived in an apartment in Ra'anana that they jointly owned.  In addition, the parties have an additional apartment in Ra'anana registered in their name (hereinafter together: Apartments in Ra'anana).
5. After their separation in 2019, the parties filed mutual property claims with the Family Court. In this framework, the woman petitioned for the dissolution of the partnership in apartments in Ra'anana (Claims after the settlement of litigation 68967-11-20), as well as for indemnification, inter alia, for earnings gaps (Claims after the settlement of litigation 9319-04-21).  On the other hand, The man claimed half of the rights in the apartments in Nes Ziona, claiming that the conduct of the parties over the years indicates an intention on the part of the woman to share in relation to the apartments; Alternatively, the man claimed half of the value of the betterment of the land, as a balancable asset under the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: Property Relations Law or The Law; Claims after the settlement of litigation 59414-01-20).

I will preface by saying that the appeals before us are focused on the rulings of the trial courts regarding the man's claim.