And:
"As stated, case law has determined in most cases that 'something additional' that attests to a specific intention to share in an 'external' asset is an investment by the unregistered spouse in the property. Indeed, such an investment, insofar as it is a serious financial investment that is not void in sixty years, testifies by way of conduct to the intention of partnership on the part of both spouses and to the economic mixing of assets" (ibid., paragraph 21).
The Honorable Justice Amit was also of the opinion that "for the purpose of weighing that 'something extra' that is required to prove a specific intention to share, leniency should be given to the residential apartment as opposed to other assets that were brought to the marriage by one of the spouses" when one of the parameters for proving the same is 'a massive renovation or a substantial building addition financed by both spouses' (paragraph 2)".
I will add that in Tax Appeal 1398/11 mentioned above in section 31, the Honorable Justice Amit set conditions for the purpose of weighing that "something extra" that is required to prove a specific intention to participate. The conditions were referred to in his judgment as "parameters" and they were detailed as follows:
( - ) Whether the apartment was brought by one of the spouses to the marriage (as in the present case) or purchased by one of the spouses after the marriage.
( - ) Whether the apartment was received during the marriage by virtue of an inheritance or a gift, in which case, in my opinion, a greater degree of proof is required. This is especially true in the case of an apartment that was received as a gift during the period of the marriage, for the reason that weight must be given to the fact that the giver of the gift chose to give it to only one of the spouses and that the other spouse agreed, even if tacitly, that the apartment received as a gift would be registered only in the name of the spouse receiving the gift.
( - ) Does the other spouse also have a residential apartment or other external property that he brought with him to his marriage and which remains registered in his name?