In addition, it was determined that during the years of their joint life, the parties acted in considerable cooperation regarding their financial resources, both with regard to the project and the apartments and in general. As for the project and the apartments, it was noted, inter alia, that the proceeds from the two apartments that were sold were transferred to the joint accounts of the parties; Because The parties managed from these accounts, both for their current needs and in relation to the apartments; that the couple paid from a joint account sums required to take out a mortgage that was used to pay expenses related to the project; and that the parties conducted themselves in a cooperative manner both in relation to their income from the apartments and in relation to their income from all sources. In this last matter, it was noted, inter alia, that the man transferred to a joint account of the parties a sum of ILS 1.3 million of inheritance money that he received; that the parties shared their current income and social rights; and that during the course of their life together, the wife sold apartments that she owned before the marriage, and the proceeds were used to purchase the apartments in Ra'anana, which are registered in the name of both spouses. In view of the aforesaid, it was held that the manner in which the parties conducted themselves with respect to their financial resources also indicates the intention of sharing on the part of the woman with respect to the apartments, and the presentation of a representation on her part towards the man that it was their joint property; and that the woman did not act at any stage in a way that would make it clear to the man that the apartments were her separate property.
- In light of all this, it was determined, as aforesaid, that the intention of sharing in relation to the apartments was proven; However, the partnership does not apply to the land on which the apartments are built - as it was given as a gift to the woman, as agricultural land - and therefore, the man must pay the woman the value of the land as agricultural land.
[To complete the picture, it should be noted that the Family Court rejected the woman's claim for indemnification for earnings gaps; and also ordered the dissolution of the partnership in apartments in Ra'anana].
- The parties filed appeals against this judgment to the District Court. Essentially, the woman challenged the determination that an intention to share in relation to the apartments had been proven; The man, on the other hand, appealed the determination that the value of the land should be deducted from his rights in the apartments, as it was given as a gift to the woman, as agricultural land.
The District Court's Judgment
- The District Court (Judge) Y. Moskowitz And the Judge Sunday Autumn, against the judge's dissenting opinion Z. Weizmann) ruled that the main ruling of the Family Court should be left in place. It was held that there was no room to intervene in his determinations, according to which a specific intention to share with respect to the apartments was proven. However, it was held that given that the land was initially given as a gift to a woman only, the scope of the interpretation of the partnership must be examined, and in particular whether "the partnership applies to the property in its entirety or only to the betterment", in accordance with the considerations that are generally used to decide the question of the existence of a specific partnership.
- The District Court ruled that, contrary to the woman's claim, the man's involvement in the project also included actions relating to changing the designation of the land for residence; and that therefore the partnership in our case also applies "to the increase in the value of the land as a result of the change in designation". However, it was held that "for reasons of law and even for considerations of justice", no intention of sharing with respect to the land, in its condition as agricultural land, as it was received as a gift before the marriage, was not proven. This determination was based, in essence, on the fact that the apartments in Nes Ziona were not used as the parties' residence, or as any other property of a family nature; and that the couple has additional assets, some of which are owned separately, in a manner that attests to the absence of absolute cooperation in their relationship. The District Court added that the intention of sharing in our case was formulated at the time of the parties' marriage. In light of all this, it was held that the partnership between the parties applies "only with respect to the praise that arose during the period of the partnership", which are the apartments themselves, and not on the land, as the woman received as a gift from her father.
- It was emphasized that this determination raises practical complexity, and the dilemma of how it should be translated into a practical outcome: whether an unequal division of rights in apartments should be established in favor of women; to retain all rights in the apartments owned by the woman, and to divide between her and the man the value of the betterment - of the land as an agriculturist, which also includes the apartments - within the framework of the balance of resources under the Property Relations Law; or to divide the rights in the apartments equally between the parties, and to grant the wife, within the framework of the aforesaid balance, a financial right in the amount of the value of the land as of the date of the marriage, on which it was determined that the partnership had begun. The District Court ruled that in the circumstances of the case, the "proper and balanced solution, which does justice to both parties", is to divide the property rights in the apartments between them in equal parts, and to credit to the woman the value of the land of the apartments at the time of the marriage, before its designation has been changed, as aforesaid, within the framework of the balance of resources under the Property Relations Law.
- In the opinion of the judge Weizmann, which remained, as stated, in a minority opinion, there was no room to deduct from the man's rights in the apartments the value of the land at the time of the marriage, before its designation for residence was changed. The Judge Weizmann He emphasized that in the circumstances of the case, an agreement was reached between the couple that the man handles the entire issue of the land and the project, and that the apartments are a joint family asset, important and substantial, which stands at the top of the family's economic planning, even though it originated from a gift that the woman received. It was further emphasized that in our case, the intention of the partnership in relation to the apartments is clear and clear, so that the attempt to separate the appreciation from the principal is artificial. It was further determined that the man relied on the woman's conduct and on clear representations on her part, from which he learned that the consideration that would derive from the project was absolutely shared by the couple; and that ignoring this reliance, after the man has invested his powers and money in its wake, amounts to bad faith and enrichment, and not in law.