On February 5, 2025, the Respondent submitted its arguments.
According to the Respondent, the apartment was indeed defined in the prenuptial agreement as an unbalanceable asset (clause 7.1b of the agreement), but the provisions of clauses 8.1 and 8.2 of the prenuptial agreement allow each party to the agreement to turn an unbalanceable asset into a balancable asset, and not only in the event of death. The Respondent is of the opinion that a reading of the provisions of Clauses 15.9, 15.10, 15.14 and 15.19 of the Prenuptial Agreement, together sharply, leads to the conclusion that the transfer of the deceased's property to the Respondent was not made after death, but rather "it is a gift in life, which was promised not to be retracted, during the life of the deceased". According to her, from the provisions of these sections it can be learned that from the date of purchase of the apartment onwards, "the respondent has partial ownership of this apartment, which is increasing from day to day" and this is "by virtue of a property transaction that has nothing to do with inheritance matters". This is also evident from the provision of clause 15.13 of the agreement, which granted it the right of the first to purchase "the remainder of the ownership in the investment apartment", and from this we learn that the respondent acquires ownership rights in the investment apartment without virtue of inheritance. The Respondent referred to a recent judgment given by the Supreme Court in Other Municipality Applications 4460/22 Tirza Avidar v. State of Israel, The Center for the Collection of Fines, Fees and Expenses (published in Nevo, January 30, 2025) and learns from it that "as soon as the Respondent was entitled to have a warning note registered in her favor on the apartment, since she was not registered on the 'investment apartment', by virtue of its granting to her by the deceased, and not because of inheritance, there is no application to the provision of section 8(b) of the Inheritance Law. in his case, and the respondent is entitled to full ownership of the apartment." The Respondent further argues that the provision of Clause 15.14 of the Prenuptial Agreement unequivocally states that the transfer of ownership and the completion of the transfer of full ownership to the Respondent in the event of the death of the deceased will be complete, and irrevocable, which will prevail over any provision of the will and constitute a debt of the deceased to the Respondent, even after death. The Respondent refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court Other Municipality Applications 879/14 Amos Nachshon v. Yehuda Nachshon (published in Nevo, May 5, 2016). hereinafter: the Nachshon case) and is of the opinion that its determinations support its position that the provisions of the prenuptial agreement do not contradict the provision of section 8(b) of the Inheritance Law.