00
- 0In summary, the defendant was unable to prove that the gift was indeed transferred to both spouses. The registration of the apartment in the plaintiff's name, together with the fact that the source of financing for the apartment is completely external and the affidavit signed by the plaintiff before a notary public indicating the gift she received from her father and her, all as a whole, establish a presumption that this is an unbalanced property. The burden of contradicting this presumption is on the defendant and it has not been lifted.
- We must now address the defendant's arguments that even if this is a gift that was received by the plaintiff, still, the conduct and conduct of the parties over the years indicates the creation of a partnership in a specific property according to the general law, especially when it comes to the crowning glory of the parties' assets, i.e., their residential apartment (Civil Appeal 7687/04 Sasson v. Sasson, IsrSC 59 (5) 596, 604).
- I will relate below to the defendant's claims regarding the sharing of the apartment, and in particular with regard to his claims regarding the application of "something else". In Family Appeal (Tel Aviv-Yafo) 52376-02-15 A. v. A. A., [Nevo] (October 25, 2016), the following rules of case law were summarized and are relevant to our case:
"The burden of proving the sharing of the external property is indeed on the unregistered spouse, but when the external property is the residential apartment that was used by the couple, then "there is reason to make it easier for the spouse who claims joint ownership of the residential apartment when it is registered in the name of only one of them" (the Abu Rumi case).
This burden is lifted, as determined in a later ruling, by way of proving "something else":
"Thus, the spouse who wishes to be granted half of the rights in the residential apartment registered in the name of the other spouse must prove - beyond the existence of a joint marriage, even if it is prolonged - the existence of 'something additional' that will attest to the intention of sharing in the specific property. A review of the case law shows that in most of the cases in which the courts accepted the claim of partnership, it was proven that financial investments were made in the property on the part of the spouse claiming the partnership, and these investments constituted 'something additional' that testifies to the intention of the partnership" [in Tax Appeal 1398/11 Anonymous v. Anonymous [Nevo] (December 26, 2012), the Honorable Justice Danziger, para. 17].