Clause 15.19 of the agreement stipulates that "if and during the first year of the period of joint life the man does not actually purchase the investment apartment, all of the provisions of this clause will apply to the apartment on R Street in City M (which appears in clause 7.1b) and a warning note will be recorded in favor of the woman on this apartment. It should be clarified that there is no mortgage regarding this apartment."
In its lawsuit, the respondent argued that taking into account the fact that the deceased died only about one month after the date of the conclusion of the agreement from their marriage and was not able to actually purchase the investment apartment, in these circumstances the provisions of sections 15.14 and 15.19 of the prenuptial agreement are supposed to apply together and that she is entitled to full rights in the apartment and is also entitled to have a warning note written in her favor regarding the rights therein.
The appellants, on the other hand, argued in their statement of defense that according to the provisions of the agreement, the first date on which the respondent will be entitled to any rights in the investment apartment (which was not purchased) is at the end of 4 years from the date of the "beginning of the joint life" and that in the present case the respondent's "period of joint life" with their deceased father did not begin at all, because they did not live together as planned, and therefore the respondent is not entitled to anything.
In its judgment, the trial court ruled that it did not accept the appellants' interpretation and that from the language of the agreement, it appears that the couple viewed as the beginning of their life together the date of signing the agreement or the date of the marriage and not the date of the beginning of their joint residence. Therefore, it accepted the respondent's claim and ruled that the apartment belongs to her, by virtue of the provisions of sections 15.14 and 15.19 of the prenuptial agreement.