The Family Court's Judgment
- The Family Court partially accepted the man's claim. It was determined that the man had proven an intention to share in relation to the apartments; Therefore, they belong to him and the woman in equal parts. At the same time, it was determined that the partnership did not apply to the land on which the apartments are built, in its condition "as it was given as a gift to the woman before the marriage, and as it was registered in her name only, as agricultural land"; This is because the land was given as a gift to the woman only. Therefore, it was determined that the man must pay the woman "the value of the land, as agricultural land."
- The court emphasized that the Prenuptial Relations Law applies to the parties, which excludes from the balancing mechanism, inter alia, "assets that [the couple had] on the eve of the marriage"; He rejected the man's claim that the land was given as a gift to him and the woman together.
However, as stated, it was held that The man proved a specific intention to share with respect to the apartments themselves. It was emphasized that throughout the years of marriage, the man was actively involved in the project, from taking the necessary steps to implement it and ending with the management of the rental of the apartments. Among other things, it was determined that the man was involved in the stage of changing the designation of the land for residence, as a "representative of the owner of the land", while the woman was not involved at this stage and relied on the man; and that the man worked with the contractors and conducted the negotiations with them. It was also emphasized that the man "succeeded in proving his active involvement, almost exclusively, in the care of the apartments throughout the construction and after they were built." Among other things, it was determined that the man was the one who received possession of the apartments, handled the tax matters relating to the project, and even paid some of them himself; Because it was the man who managed the rental of the apartments; that the rent from them, between the years 2014-2019, was transferred to the parties' joint account; and that the woman herself testified that she was not involved in the affairs of the apartments. It was held that the aforementioned set of actions, which were not accompanied by "opposition or expression of a position on the part of the woman, and while the woman actually enjoys the financial and procedural conduct accompanying the care of the apartments", proves that the woman saw the man as a partner in the rights in the apartments.