Claims after the Litigation Settlement (Jerusalem) 50350-07-22 D.B. v. R. M.

Judgment

1. Introduction
2. I have before me a claim for balancing resources between spouses, who were married on 00.00.2011. The lawsuit focuses on the period of joint life that was determined between the dates of 00.00.2011 and the date of the rupture - 18.10.2021.  The parties have three children, and in parallel to this proceeding, two other cases are being conducted regarding child support and time of stay.  This judgment deals only with the issues of the balance of resources, and in the framework of it, the arguments of both spouses who wish to apply the exceptions to the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: the "Property Relations Law") will be decided.
3. The main disputes relate to the rights in the residential apartment and the debts of the defendant-man. The plaintiff claims that the residential apartment, which is fully registered in her name, was given to her as a gift from her father in 2013, and therefore, in accordance with the Property Relations Law, it is not a balanced asset.  The plaintiff emphasizes that the registration in her name attests to her exclusive ownership and that there was no intention to share the apartment that might grant the defendant rights therein.
4. On the other hand, the defendant claims that the funds for the purchase of the apartment were given as a gift from the plaintiff's father to both parties together, and that the registration was made in the woman's name only for technical reasons and following advice he received from an accountant. He notes that he invested considerable money in the apartment in its renovation, paid current bills and took care of matters relating to its maintenance, thus treating it as an owner's custom.  According to him, his actions were carried out with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, without her contesting it, a fact that testifies to the intention of sharing the apartment.  This sharing gives him the right to own half of the rights in the apartment.
5. In addition, there is a significant dispute between the parties regarding the debts that the defendant incurred during the marriage, along with funds transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that these debts, including a loan taken for the purchase of a property in Be'er Sheva and loans from third parties, are private debts of the man, which were taken without her knowledge and for purposes unrelated to the family unit.  Therefore, according to her, these obligations should not be included in the framework of the balance of resources.  On the other hand, the defendant argues that these are joint debts that were accumulated during the period of their joint life and for the purpose of the family unit, and therefore they should be shared equally.
6. The parties' arguments in summary
7. According to the plaintiff, the apartment was purchased for her as a gift from her father's money, which was transferred about two years after the parties' marriage. The apartment is fully registered in her name only, and therefore it is not a balancable asset in accordance with the Property Relations Law.  Her father gave her (and only her) sums of money as a gift for the purchase of the apartment, and he transferred the sums directly to the seller of the apartment.  The funds were transferred to the plaintiff at the expense of her future inheritance from her father and not as a gift to both parties as spouses.  As evidence to prove the intention with respect to the gift money that was granted to her only, the plaintiff attached a "notarized affidavit" which the plaintiff signed on November 29, 2023.  According to this affidavit, the plaintiff received as a gift from her father the sum of 482,409 euros, along with an additional sum transferred in US dollars.  The affidavit states that the sum is transferred to the plaintiff as a gift at the expense of her future inheritance.  The affidavit also states that the plaintiff agrees to receive the rights in the apartment as a gift and without any consideration.
8. The plaintiff claims that at the time of the parties' marriage, her father conducted an arbitration proceeding against the parties in the Financial Law Court, where the father claimed that the apartment was registered as a gift in her name, but this was done with the intention of evading tax payment, and he never intended to give the plaintiff a gift. The plaintiff and the defendant sought to annul the arbitration award, and it was indeed annulled within the framework of the District Court's judgment given in the Motion to Initiate Arbitration (Jerusalem District) 2439-11-16 [Nevo].  These proceedings for the sake of simplification, hereinafter referred to as the "arbitration proceedings", are of particular importance because in the framework of these proceedings the defendant repeatedly claimed that the apartment belonged only to the plaintiff and after the gift had been completed in her hands alone.
9. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant had not invested anything in the apartment. The repairs made to the apartment were carried out by the contracting company that built the apartment.  The plaintiff claimed that the defendant wanted to sell the apartment in order to repay his debts, but she refused, and emphasized that she was not selling her apartment in order to repay his debts.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)

8. The plaintiff claimed that throughout their life together, the parties maintained a complete separation of property, with her money deposited in her bank account and the defendant's money deposited into his bank account. Therefore, according to her, debts that were created without her knowledge, or not for the benefit of the family unit, are not joint debts that she must bear.
9. The plaintiff managed to save more than ILS 200,000 before the marriage, of which about ILS 70,000 remained after the defendant persuaded her to transfer about ILS 160,000 to him. According to her, these funds were saved before the marriage and are not balanced, and it must be determined that they belong in full to the plaintiff.
10. Prior to their marriage, the plaintiff took a loan of ILS 60,000 from her bank. The plaintiff took this loan for the defendant in order to cover his debts, on condition that he undertake to pay the payments in full, and he did cover it.  After the marriage, an additional loan of ILS 100,000 was taken.  The defendant claimed that he had to pay this amount to the Income Tax.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant lied to her in this matter and made other use of the money, and to this day he has not replied to her.  A loan of ILS 250,000 was also taken out for the purchase of a property in Be'er Sheva.  The plaintiff claims that she has never seen the property and does not know what was done with the money, and the defendant later claimed that there was no such property and even refused to detail what happened to the funds.  As of the date of the statement of claim, there is a balance of approximately ILS 73,500 left for disposal in respect of this loan.
11. The plaintiff claims that the defendant became a partner in her bank account in order to take out a loan, when at the end of the day she was the one who had to repay it. His conduct was conspiratorial, while hiding debts that arose from loans he took from third parties.  Among these other parties, there were H.H.  and Z.  who claimed that the defendant explicitly asked them not to tell the plaintiff about the loans he had taken, which indicates that the money did not enter the house and was not used by the family unit.
12. The plaintiff demands that loans taken out after the date of the rupture not be taken into account and that were taken into account by the actuary who made an account regarding the balance of resources that includes these loans.
13. In contrast to these claims of the plaintiff, the defendant claims that the funds for the purchase of the apartment were given as a gift to both parties together, and that the registration was done in the woman's name only for technical reasons and following advice he received from his accountant. In the arbitration proceedings conducted by the father, both parties were sued, which indicates the father's perception that the apartment was supposed to belong to both of them, since the gift was given to both of them together.
14. Copied fromNevo The defendant claims that he was the one who initiated and handled the entire process of purchasing the apartment, located the property, conducted the negotiations and handled everything related to the professionals required to purchase the property and adapt it to the needs of the parties. His contribution was significant and substantial far beyond the conduct of a spouse whose apartment is not his.  He invested considerable money in the apartment in renovations, including closing a balcony of about 17 square meters at a high economic cost, repairing leaks and handling various demands from the neighbors.
15. The defendant claims that over the years, the plaintiff has made active and passive representations that the apartment is shared. Thus, for example, the plaintiff made a representation according to which his apartment was so that he would feel comfortable investing in it.  In addition, the plaintiff confirmed that both of them had an intention to sell the apartment in order to repay joint debts, which indicates that the plaintiff saw it as a joint property.  The defendant claims that the plaintiff admitted during the proceeding that the registration of the apartment does not reflect the factual reality regarding it.
16. As to the plaintiff's obligation to bear the joint debts together with him, the defendant argued that
    the debts accumulated during the period of their joint life and for the purpose of the family unit, and therefore they should be shared equally. He bore all the joint expenses of the house, and it is unlikely that he would have done so if he had not seen himself as a partner alongside the plaintiff.  The defendant claimed that the plaintiff worked alongside him in the banquet hall that was opened by him and closed following a business failure, and therefore she was well aware of what was happening with the loans taken to finance the banquet hall and its financial situation.  The plaintiff's work in the banquet hall testifies to her knowledge and participation in the business and its economic implications.  Since the plaintiff worked alongside the defendant in a business that the two established from scratch, the plaintiff is silenced to claim that she was not involved in the defendant's financial conduct.  The failure of his business and the creation of debts are the result of reality, and the plaintiff is not entitled to escape from it.

• Expert Opinion

17. Two expert opinions were submitted to the court file. The first, the opinion of the actuary, the accountant Yosef Barak, and the second, the opinion of the appraiser Jacqueline Hacham, who estimated the value of the parties' apartment.
18. The opinion of the expert accountant actuary Yosef Barak (hereinafter: "the actuary") was submitted to the court file on October 8, 2023, and the actuary completed his answers to clarification questions addressed to him by the parties on November 2, 2023. In this opinion, the actuary reviewed the financial rights and obligations of the parties according to two alternatives.  One, "without the loans claimed in the husband's additional affidavit," and the other "includes loans, which are not bank loans, which were first claimed in the husband's additional affidavit." The idea behind the choice of alternatives is to get an up-to-date picture of the status of the parties' debts, whether it is determined that they are joint or whether it is determined that each of them must bear his or her debts alone without the participation of the spouse.
19. According to Alternative A, when this reflects an actuarial balance between all the financial rights of the parties and without the plaintiff's participation in the defendant's loans and debts, the plaintiff must transfer the sum of ILS 40,463 to the defendant after closing joint accounts, in equal parts. According to Alternative B, when this reflects the plaintiff's obligation to bear half of the defendant's debts to a list of lenders (as detailed in the opinion), the plaintiff must transfer the defendant the sum of ILS 246,163, after closing the joint accounts.  It should be noted that the actuary noted in his opinion that his calculations in Alternative B are contingent on "the admissibility of the loans and their validity".  The parties sent clarification questions to the actuary, who remained in his position.  The parties did not see fit to summon the actuary for questioning about his opinion.
20. The appraiser Hacham submitted her opinion to the court file on September 17, 2024.  According to this opinion, the apartment in dispute was valued at approximately ILS 5,000,000.  The parties did not dispute the opinion of the appraiser Hacham.
21. The Course of Hearing the Evidence and the Parties' Summaries
22. In this case, two evidentiary hearings were heard. Counsel for the parties summarized their oral arguments before me on April 30, 2026.  The plaintiff testified as well as Ms. P., a private investigator on behalf of the plaintiff - Mr. N., Mr. A.S.  who worked as a mediator in the past together with the defendant, and the plaintiff's father - Mr. N.A.  As for the testimony of the father, Mr. N.A., it was translated by the court security guard since the plaintiff did not take care to bring an interpreter in French.  This was done with the consent of the parties, also in light of the fact that the defendant is partially fluent in this language.  However, the testimony ended earlier than expected and in light of the plaintiff's own request.  Later, it was argued in the defendant's summaries that the testimony had been interrupted and that it should not be relied upon.  In the decision of 5 May 2026, I allowed the parties to respond to my position that this testimony should be completed, but in view of the reactions of the parties who did not agree to this, the witness was not summoned again to give his testimony.  See the decision of May 13, 2026.
23. The plaintiff testified and was cross-examined. In her testimony, she emphasized that over the years the defendant had deceitfully borrowed money from her.  Her father gave her money to buy an apartment, and since it was his money, the apartment actually belonged to the father.  The plaintiff also testified that she was involved in a business that the defendant established - a banquet hall.  The defendant testified and was cross-examined about his testimony.  During his interrogation, the defendant emphasized that he had invested a lot of money in the parties' apartment and that he had worked hard for it.  The defendant confirmed that the party that financed the apartment was the plaintiff's father, Mr. N.A., and that the purchase money was transferred directly from him to the account of the seller of the apartment, or someone on her behalf.  In addition, defendant H.H., A., Z.  and P.  testified that they lent him money, and their testimony supported his claims regarding the amounts of the loans stated in the actuary's opinion.
24. In her summary, counsel for the plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the defendant's claims regarding investment in the residential apartment have no factual basis. The defendant used a trick to obtain money from the plaintiff by means of loans from her bank account under the guise of investing in a property in Be'er Sheva.  It was claimed that the defendant sold the banquet hall for ILS 460,000 and concealed these funds from the plaintiff.
25. In his summaries, counsel for the defendant emphasized, inter alia, the many contradictions in the plaintiff's testimony, according to him. In addition, emphasis was placed on the idea that the plaintiff's father gave the parties money and not an apartment, and this fact is important.  Either way, the money was transferred to both parties as a gift, and therefore the gift chain, i.e.  the apartment, belongs to both of them.  The plaintiff actually serves as a "kind of trustee" in the apartment for the defendant.  Counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff is obligated to bear the parties' debts half by half by virtue of the Property Relations Law.
26. Discussion and Decision - Sharing in the Residential Apartment
27. If we dig the bar out of the chaff, the following is a breakdown of the basic facts that in my opinion are not in dispute:

The couple married in 2011.  At the end of 2013, the plaintiff signed an affidavit that was verified by a notary in which she confirms that she agrees to receive as a gift from her father the sum of 482,409 euros and 103,680 US dollars.  The plaintiff declared that these sums constituted her share of her future inheritance and that she agreed to "receive the rights in the apartment as a gift and without any consideration." The sums that appeared in the gift affidavit were estimated at more than ILS 2.6 million according to the exchange rate at the time.

26. Another basic fact is that the agreement for the purchase of the apartment was signed on March 24, 2014, and the parties received possession of it on May 15, 2014 (page 8 of the plaintiff's exhibits file). The date of the rupture was set for October 18, 2021, meaning that the parties lived together in the apartment for about 7 years and as a married couple for a total of about 10 years.  The consideration for the apartment was approximately ILS 2.9 million, and there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff's father financed 100% of the purchase cost by paying the consideration to the seller of the apartment or anyone on her behalf.  There is no mortgage loan on the apartment.  On August 8, 2017, the apartment was registered at the Land Registry Office in the plaintiff's name only, according to the registration document presented on page 5 of the plaintiff's exhibits file.
27. As stated, the defendant claims that both spouses received the money as a gift, a joint giving that ultimately drained into the purchase of the apartment. Since the money was given as a gift to both of them, then the apartment belongs to both of them together and the registration does not change anything.  The defendant further argues that the conduct of the parties over the years indicates a specific intention to share this property and that the defendant has passed the necessary case law tests in order to condition the relevant provisions of the Property Relations Law, including the requirement to prove "something else".  We will discuss these arguments below.
28. The property regime that applies to the couple is that specified in the Property Relations Law. According to Section 5(a)(1) of the Property Relations Law, with the dissolution of the marriage, each spouse is entitled to half of the value of the couple's assets, with the exception of "assets that they had on the eve of the marriage or received as a gift or inheritance during the period of the marriage." Since the defendant claims that the gift in the form of the funds financed the purchase of the apartment registered in the plaintiff's name and that the money was transferred from the plaintiff's father, the defendant's argument is nothing more than the claim of a spouse claiming a specific sharing of an external asset that was received as a gift, and therefore the burden is on him to prove a specific intention to share, and the burden is on him to prove that the gift was given to him in an equal manner alongside the plaintiff.
29. After reviewing, I have reached the conclusion that the defendant has not been able to prove the claim that the defendant was a partner in receiving the gift from the plaintiff's father as money that was transferred as a gift to both spouses.

I will explain this position below.

30. First of all, I will clarify that in my opinion, there is no room to distinguish between the granting of the gift and the purchase of the apartment. The father decided to transfer the money to the plaintiff according to the affidavit at the end of 2013.  In March 2014, the apartment was purchased and the money was transferred from the father to the seller of the apartment.  It is therefore a one-piece piece.  The apartment was purchased in the plaintiff's name only in the sale agreement and was also registered at the Land Registry Office.  The argument that the money was given to both spouses as a gift requires proof, and the defendant has not been able to present convincing evidence that this was indeed the case.
31. InTax Appeal 1398/11 Anonymous v.  [Nevo] (December 26, 2012), the Honorable Justice Yitzhak Amit ruled that in the case of an apartment that was received by inheritance or gift during the marriage, a heavier burden of proof should be placed on the person claiming to share, compared to the burden imposed on the claimant to share an apartment purchased prior to the marriage.
32. From all the evidence presented to me, the conclusion is strengthened that even the defendant himself believed that the gift money was given to the plaintiff only. The defendant did not deny the preparation of the affidavit that the plaintiff signed alone before a notary.  According to this affidavit, the gift was given to her only.  The defendant did not claim that he did not know of the existence of the affidavit, or that the plaintiff signed it without his knowledge.  The affidavit detailed the funds and clearly stated that the funds were given to the plaintiff only as a gift for the purchase of an apartment, at the expense of her future inheritance.  The plaintiff's cross-examinations in this context did not provide support for the defendant's claims.  On the contrary, the plaintiff's interrogation in this context left a credible impression.  The plaintiff testified in this regard as follows:

"A.  But he made a notary letter, took me to sign a notary in my name, wrote down that the money was a gift for buying an apartment for D.B.  and not for R.B., as if if if it weren't for my father he would have already bought an apartment, wrote it in the name of both of us, and that's it."