( - ) The length of the period in which the apartment was registered in the name of one of the spouses and the number of years that the couple lived in the apartment (the shorter the period, the greater the degree of proof of sharing the apartment).
( - ) The length of the marriage until the rupture or until the divorce (the shorter the period of the marriage, the greater the degree of proof of sharing the apartment).
( - ) Whether a loan was taken for which a pledge/mortgage was registered on the apartment, and which was paid over the years by the couple jointly.
( - ) Massive renovation or substantial building addition financed by both spouses.
( - ) Behavior of the parties - a general atmosphere of cooperation and joint effort.
( - ) Additional specific circumstances such as making a representation to the other spouse.
- In our case, it was held that the apartment was received as a gift during the marriage, and therefore the defendant has an increased burden of proof, since he agreed that the apartment would be registered in the plaintiff's name only. In total, the parties lived in the apartment for about seven years. These are not couples who have lived in the apartment for many long years, while building a general atmosphere of sharing. In fact, most of their married life was conducted with both of them having separate bank accounts , and even according to the rabbinical claimant who claimed on their behalf in the Financial Court, they paid separately, which indicates separate property conduct, even if only in a certain way. We will now discuss the defendant's claim that he invested a lot of money in the apartment.
- The defendant claimed that he invested between ILS 350,000 and ILS 400,000 of his money in the construction of a "balcony closure". He testified in his initial interrogation:
"Of course. We were both in his office, only he knew me. Between 350 and 400,000 shekels, inside and out."
(Transcript of the hearing of February 5, 2026, page 25, lines 37 to 38).
- This is a very impressive claim, really "stealing hearts". Rather, the claim has no expression whatsoever in Scripture. These are not couples with a penny in their pockets. Throughout their life together, their livelihood was reasonable, if not less. The defendant testified that he was a "loan roller". If the defendant had indeed raised a sum of approximately ILS 350,000 from any entity, this could have been easily proven. There is no proof of fundraising and there is no proof on the ground that the construction was carried out. The plaintiff denied that such construction had indeed been carried out. The plaintiff testified that a window was built to prevent noise from a nearby construction site. The plaintiff's testimony on this matter was found to be reliable to me.
- Moreover, the same balcony closure is not reflected in the appraiser's opinion that was enumerated. The appraiser noted that this is an "uncovered balcony" with a size of 94.10 square meters. I did not see any expression in her opinion about a closed balcony that did not exist prior to the purchase of the apartment in 2014. The defendant failed to prove that he paid any payment for "closing the balcony", or that such a construction action was carried out at all.
- In Appendix 12 to the defendant's exhibit file, there is a detail regarding those investments that the defendant allegedly made, and which are sufficient to prove a serious financial investment that is not void in sixty years and which testifies by way of conduct to the partnership of both spouses. A careful examination of the attachments compiled in Appendix 12 shows that this appendix misses the main investment that the defendant claimed, which is the closing of a balcony at a cost of hundreds of thousands of shekels. No evidence was submitted for my examination that tipped the scales in favor of the defendant on this level.
- And more. Appendix 12 contains tax invoices, or price quotes, without a practical expression of their actual payment. Some of them were duplication and I will assume in favor of the defendant that this was done due to mistake. Two identical receipts appear (duplicate) attesting to the payment of ILS 2,000. There is a reference for the payment of the sum of ILS 2,000. Beyond that, there may be payment demands, but beyond one receipt of ILS 2,000, I did not find any expression of any payment made by the defendant for the apartment. This is a small sum that is less than a fraction of the value of the apartment. Even if we add together all the payments that the defendant claims, including the payments to the rabbinical claimant who represented him in the arbitration proceedings (Appendix 11), no one would dispute that this is a total expense that is "null and void" and that it is not a matter of "massive renovation or substantial building addition financed by both spouses" (supra case 1398/11).
- The defendant again referred to a draft prenuptial agreement drafted by the plaintiff shortly after the filing of the dispute resolution proceeding. The defendant claimed that in the agreement drafted by the plaintiff, it was written that the parties declared that they were leading a married life under one roof and running a joint household. According to the defendant, this should prove the partnership between the parties. This argument should be rejected. First, the agreement was not signed. Second, in the very same agreement, a clear and clear mechanism was established regarding the separation of property between the parties, including the apartment. Third, the plaintiff did not deny that she and the defendant lived together under the same roof in partnership. This sharing did not include the apartment and this was written in the draft agreement. On the one hand, the defendant seeks to rely on one line of the agreement, but on the other hand, he ignores the main point, since in the agreement the apartment was excluded from the total joint assets of the parties, noting the fact that the apartment was given as a gift to the plaintiff (paragraphs 20 and 24 of the draft prenuptial agreement).
- It is possible that the defendant was involved in the purchase of the apartment, and there is no doubt that he was more involved than the plaintiff in managing proceedings related to its ongoing maintenance. There is also no doubt that the defendant conducted the arbitration proceedings and that he sought to examine the possibility of selling it alongside the plaintiff. Still, this totality of conduct, in my opinion, does not point to "something additional" as required by the case law.
- In summary, I did not find in the defendant's arguments and in the evidence that was placed before me, that he was able to point out and prove the weight of that "something extra" that is required to prove the intention of a specific sharing of the residential apartment, especially when the defendant has an increased burden of proof, as detailed above.
- Loans and Debts - Decision and Reasons
- The plaintiff claimed in her statement of claim that after their marriage, at the defendant's request, she borrowed money for him and the defendant returned these funds to her by transferring money to her bank account. About a year after the date of the marriage, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had borrowed an additional sum of ILS 100,000 from her in order to repay a debt to the Income Tax. The plaintiff claimed that she had asked the defendant to repay her the amount of the aforementioned loan.
- The plaintiff claimed that the defendant persuaded her to take a loan from her bank account with him in order to purchase a property in Be'er Sheva. For this purpose, the defendant was added as a partner to her account. Together, the two took out a loan of ILS 250,000. The defendant used to return the loan amount to the joint account from his own account, but to this day the plaintiff has not seen the property in Be'er Sheva. In order to repay the loan, the defendant ordered the repayment of savings from the bank account (which had previously been the plaintiff's). Moreover, for the purpose of establishing a business of the event hall type, the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of ILS 60,000.
- Alongside the aforementioned loans, the plaintiff found out that the defendant had borrowed money from third parties. The balance of the aforementioned loans was detailed in the actuary's opinion. In the opinion, it was noted that the total amount of loans taken by the defendant was ILS 411,400. According to an actuarial calculation, after the closing of the joint accounts and assuming that the loans declared by the defendant are indeed valid, the plaintiff must transfer to the defendant the sum of ILS 246,163 as of the date of writing the opinion.
- The defendant claimed that it was the plaintiff who asked to add him to her bank account, and he was reluctant to do so. The plaintiff was the one who withdrew joint funds that were in her account and she "transferred joint funds voluntarily and with her consent to cover the joint debt" (paragraph 8 of the statement of defense). The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff helped him manage his business and was in contact with his customers. In general, the defendant testified that he used to lend money during the parties' life together and in order to repay this or that loan he sometimes used to borrow from one in order to repay the other. The defendant testified in this regard as follows:
"A. Now on this list of these people, some of them received money as a result of the incarnations I made, I mean, I, a person calls me and he tells me it's the money, I've reached an unpleasant situation, it's really not easy."