| Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court |
| Family Appeal 42471-05-24 Anonymous et al. v. Anonymous |
| Before | The Honorable Judge, Vice President Shaul Shochat
The Honorable Judge Einat Ravid The Honorable Judge Naftali Shilo |
|
| The Appellants | 1. Anonymous
2. Anonymous 3. Anonymous By Attorney Danny Sherman and/or Attorney Efrat Sherman |
|
| Against | ||
| The Respondent | Anonymous
By Adv. Dr. Haim Stanger and/or Adv. Tal Arbuz |
|
| Judgment |
Judge Shaul Shohat, Vice President, Presiding Judge:
Appeal against the judgment of the Family Court of the Tel Aviv-Yafo District (the Honorable Judge Lior Beringer in Family Case 30724-01-22), dated March 26, 2024, in which the Respondent's claim for a declaratory judgment was accepted according to which all the rights in the apartment on M Street in City R, registered in the name of the deceased (hereinafter: the apartment), belonged to her.
The facts that need to be relevant.
The Respondent is the widow of the late Mr. M.B. (hereinafter: the deceased or the man in the context).
The appellants are the children of the deceased from a previous marriage, to another woman.
The deceased and the respondent were married on December 2, 2021.
On November 30, 2021, two days before their marriage, the two signed a prenuptial agreement that was approved and authenticated before a notary public (hereinafter: the "Prenuptial Agreement").
On December 27, 2021, 25 days after their marriage, before the parties moved in together, the deceased died suddenly. At the time of the deceased's death, each of them lived in a different house.
Following the death of the deceased, the respondent opened two legal proceedings in the Family Court: one, an application for an inheritance order after his estate (hereinafter: the application for an inheritance order) and the second a claim for a declaratory judgment according to which she is entitled to full rights in the apartment (hereinafter: the claim for a declaratory judgment) - an apartment in which the ownership rights are registered in the man's name from before the marriage and defined in the prenuptial agreement. Expressly, as his property and exclusive ownership that cannot be balanced (clause 7.1b of the prenuptial agreement).
The application for an inheritance order was granted, despite the objections of the appellants. An inheritance order was issued according to which the respondent inherits half of the estate while the appellants inherit the other half (estate file 55080-02-22 and estate file 55086-02-22). An appeal filed by the appellants against a judgment of the Family Court on this matter was rejected by this panel in the judgment of June 11, 2023 (Family Appeal 44688-10-22) [Nevo]. An application for leave to appeal filed by the appellants against the transfer of a hearing in the appeal was also rejected, on July 24, 2023 (in Tax Appeal 5252/23) [Nevo].