[The wife] ****** [the husband]
There is an agreement between us that we are separated (divorced) and there is no demand between each other, neither moral nor financial, nor any demand in the way of life of the other, we remain registered as married so that ****** will remain a citizen of Israel and nothing more! What belongs to ******* belongs to ******* and what belongs to *****belongs to *****.
Each person leads his life as a complete stranger to the other as a divorcee and will not claim a right over the other in the future and forever. In the records we remain married so as not to infringe on each other's rights, we are divorced!"
- What emerges from the above is that the Applicant and the deceased were married and although they agreed on separation and the absence of financial claims against each other, they chose to remain married and not to divorce officially.
- On January 14, 2025, a hearing was held in which the Applicant claimed that she and the deceased had not actually separated, only that he had a quarrel and that she had moved in *******. She claims that she is an Israeli citizen, she received her citizenship even before the agreement quoted above, and therefore she did not need that agreement in order to protect her rights. According to her, she received Israeli citizenship as early as ****, respondent 1 approached the Ministry of Interior in an attempt to revoke her citizenship, but failed in his attempt.
According to her, she and the deceased did not return to live together, but when he was hospitalized, she stayed with him, and as far as she was concerned, they were a couple until his death. She also claims that the agreement was understood by her, she understood what she had signed, but the deceased signed the agreement under pressure from his son.
- The respondents deny the Applicant's claims, claiming that she and the deceased separated as stated in the same agreement and have not returned to live together since. Respondent 5 claims that she does not know whether the Applicant and the deceased were married or not, but the aforementioned agreement should be interpreted in accordance with the Contracts Law , and according to her, the deceased would certainly not have wanted his estate to be bequeathed to the Applicant.
- At the end of the discussion, I suggested that the parties turn to a mediation proceeding. The Applicant agreed, Respondent 5 also agreed, but Respondents 1-4 argued that they should consider this and inform the Court of their position within 7 days.
- On January 20, 2025, the Applicant announced that her door was open for dialogue, but in the absence of a response from the Respondents, she wishes to set the case for evidence. On the same day, the respondents announced that they had offered the applicant a certain compromise offer, but she refused. They claim that there is no feasibility for the success of the mediation process, and therefore they also wish to set the case for proof.
- Despite the position of both parties, I do not see fit to set the case for evidence. The facts in dispute between the parties are not relevant to the legal issue before me and I am not required to decide them in order to decide the claim.
- According to case law, the expression "spouse" in connection with sections 10 and 11 of the Inheritance Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: "the Law") refers to a person who, at the time of the testator's death, there was a marital relationship between him and the testator. This determination is also true in those extreme cases in which we are dealing only with a formal marital relationship that has had no real content for decades (see, for example, Family Appeal 38845-10-12, judgment of January 7, 2015 given by the Tel Aviv District Court). This judgment analyzed in great detail the meaning of the term "spouse" for the purposes of inheritance law and analyzed the judgment given in the Sabag case, on which the respondents seek to rely). According to the judgment, what was determined in the Sabag case related to a situation in which a man was married to a woman, she refused to accept Gita from him and he was given a permit to marry another woman, so that at the time of his death he was allegedly married to two women at the same time, a situation to which section 146 of the law relates and is not relevant to the case before me. According to the Supreme Court's ruling, the test is a formal test, meaning that if there is a marital relationship between the testator and his spouse, the spouse inherits it as stated in section 11 of the Inheritance Law. Over the years, the court adhered to the formal test and even became more stringent in relation to it, so that the issue of inheritance is of no importance to the question of what the relationship was between the spouses, nor to the fact that they lived separately at the time of the testator's death. See also S. Smith's book on this matter. Shohat, N. Goldberg and V. Plomin Danny, Inheritance and Estate (7th edition, 2014) pp. 63, 64: "... However, in our opinion, there is no room to expand the use of the possibility raised in the Sabag case with respect to cases in which the couple decided to divorce, signed a divorce agreement, approved it in the court, and even separated, and not even in a case where the deceased suffered a stroke prior to the date of the divorce arrangement, which prevented his arrangement... This is also the case in the following cases: prolonged separation, the actual division of property according to the divorce agreement that was signed, the woman's declaration as a rebel, and the woman's inactivity to annul this judgment..."
- As stated, according to the case law as interpreted by the Inheritance Law in relation to sections 10 and 11 of the Law, a "spouse" is a person who is officially married and is therefore considered a widower of the deceased. This is not a substantive test, but rather a formal test and this test only. To be precise: in the District Court judgment (Family Appeal 38845-10-12) we were talking about a couple who separated, signed an agreement that was supposed to regulate their divorce, decided to end the marital relationship between them, and were heading for divorce. In that case, the deceased left the country while his wife remained in Israel and lived with another spouse for 36 years. Despite the above, the judgment handed down at the end of the day ruled that the Supreme Court's case law chose the formal test of marriage and not the substantive test.
- On July 19, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a judgment inTax Appeal 4532/20, in which the Honorable Justice Mazuz reiterated the aforementioned rule, namely, that the interpretation of the term "spouse" for the purposes of sections 10 and 11 of the Law is a formal, official interpretation and that only, without interpreting the meaning of the nature of the relationship. The Honorable Justice Mazuz noted in his judgment that the family courts that interpreted the term "spouse" differently, according to the substantive approach, erred in doing so and deviated from the binding ruling of the Supreme Court, especially since most of them were annulled by the appellate courts.
- Indeed, there is a seemingly bad reason for a couple to decide to separate and in their own language they consider themselves divorced, and nevertheless, when one of them dies, the other petitions to inherit his share of his estate in accordance with the law. Therefore, I referred the parties to a mediation process in the hope that they would reach a compromise agreement. I regret that the parties did not reach a compromise, but according to the law, the result is, as stated above, that the Applicant inherits her share of the deceased's estate in accordance with the provisions of the law, being his wife at the time of his death. This is the law and this court is not allowed to deviate from it. Therefore, there is no room for conducting an evidentiary proceeding, since the facts required for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties are not in dispute, while the facts that are in dispute, a decision on them will not add to or detract from the legal conclusion I have reached, as stated above.
- In light of the aforesaid, it is possible to submit for my signature an inheritance order that includes the applicant and the respondents as the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of the Inheritance Law.
- In the circumstances described above, I did not find it appropriate to charge for expenses.
- The secretariat will close the file.
- Publication is permitted in the absence of identifying details.
Given today, January 21, 2025, in the absence of the parties.