(Minutes of the hearing of December 31, 2025, pages 3 and 4).
And later in her testimony in response to questions from the defendant's counsel in cross-examination:
Q: Got it, OK. You said that the defendant opened a business, I tell you that you not only designed the business, but you also dealt with the whole issue of catering and food
A: I helped yes
Q: What was your role?
A: I would help there
(Transcript of the hearing of December 31, 2025, page 11, lines 35 to 38).
- The plaintiff's testimony showed that the plaintiff helped establish the business. The plaintiff sometimes helped the defendant in managing the place, even though it was not a matter of helping on a daily basis and as a regular employee. However, the impression that emerges from the testimonies is that the plaintiff was aware, or at least should have been aware, of the financial difficulties that resulted from the failure of this business. Her acquaintance with the defendant, together with the circumstances of the collapse of the business, are circumstances that should have been considered by the plaintiff. The same applies to the financial conduct of the banks. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant that the defendant took money from her that were not returned to her, while manipulating her, are not convincing. From her testimony we learned that the plaintiff sometimes knew how to stand guard against the defendant when she wanted to do so.
- According to Section 4 of the Property Relations Law, as long as the parties are married, their property is kept for themselves and separately. The case law recognizes an exception called the "presumption of gift", according to which where there is a transfer of funds from party A to party B when there was an affectionate relationship, a special relationship of kinship, or a proper marital relationship, the burden is on the giver (who claims the existence of a loan) to prove that he did not intend to give a gift to the recipient. This presumption applies when two cumulative conditions are met: one, that the parties have a special relationship of kinship, or a marital relationship, and the other is that the relationship between the parties is of a nature that justifies attributing to the giver an intention to give a gift (see: Civil Appeal Authority 8068/16 Katan v. Cohen, [Nevo] (January 25, 2018), High Court of Justice 1907/22 Anonymous v. Anonymous, [Nevo] (June 12, 2022)). The presumption of gift can also be contradicted, but the grantor must meet an increased burden of proof and prove that the gift was devoid of any logic (see Civil Appeal 7051/93 Custodian General v. Goldberg, [Nevo] (2July 1995).
- From a review of the minutes of the hearings and the rest of the pleadings that were brought before me, it was predicted that the plaintiff's claims regarding funds that were allegedly loaned from her to the defendant in the framework of the general conduct of the banks were first made after the outbreak of the crisis between the parties. No proper evidentiary basis was placed before me from which it could be predicted that debts taken jointly from the bank should be paid only by the defendant, since the plaintiff agreed to add the defendant to her bank account and took a loan together with him. It must therefore be paid for by both parties together. The plaintiff should have received from the defendant an accurate picture of the situation regarding the purpose of taking the funds and the loan from the bank, and it is not possible to determine today that these were directed to the discharge of a loan, or a debt of the defendant that is not related to the business.
- In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the actuary's opinion (answers to clarification questions by the plaintiff of November 2, 2026), where the actuary noted in paragraph 2:
"Although the funds were in the plaintiff's account on the day of the marriage, these funds were not taken into account the balance of resources... Since these funds entered the joint fund of the parties and were used by them during their married life... Even if the money had been received before the date of the marriage, because the money entered the parties' joint fund and was used by the parties during their 10 years of marriage."
- Thus, even the actuary was of the opinion that it was not possible to differentiate between the financial resources of the couple when they were consolidated at the initiative of the parties. As stated, the plaintiff did not see fit to summon the actuary for questioning about his opinion. Beyond that, it is important to note in general that the plaintiff's argument regarding the mixing of funds and the movement of funds from her to the defendant through loans in bank accounts was plagued by confusion and incoherence, and therefore it was not possible to examine the claim in a clear and substantive manner. This was reinforced in the plaintiff's summaries that were heard before me.
- With regard to the financial conduct vis-à-vis the banks, i.e., the conduct of both spouses in the bank accounts, my conclusion is that the money transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant is a gift and the plaintiff has not been able to prove otherwise. My conclusion is different with respect to one of the loans that were taken from third parties, without the plaintiff's knowledge, as explained below.
- The legal starting point with regard to the debts of spouses to third parties states that both spouses must bear the repayment of debts together, in light of the property regime that applies to them, i.e., the Property Relations Law. There is a symmetry between rights and obligations. See: Civil Appeal 6557/95 Avnery v. Avnery, IsrSC 51 (3) 541, 546. In this judgment, the precedent established in other municipal applications 677/71 David v. David, IsrSC 26 (2) 457, 461 was quoted, according to which:
"One of the spouses should not be required to prove that he owes money, and what is the amount he owes, and he should not be required to prove the source of the debt; Just as proof is not required regarding any asset registered in the name of the spouse that was purchased from a joint fund, but rather the proof is on the party who claims that according to a special reason the property is his own, so the debts are presumed to be joint debts until the party who claims otherwise comes forward and proves that the spouse has incurred expenses of such a kind that should not be regarded as joint debts."
- A review of the precedent in the matter was made in the framework of claims after the litigation settlement (Haifa Family) 57564-01-23 Anonymous v. [Nevo] (October 12, 2025). There it reads as follows:
"In the resource balancing regime, the spouse is not required to bring evidence regarding any asset or liability, insofar as it was accumulated during the marriage (up to the determining date) and is not removed from the balancing assets according to section 5 of the law. In exceptional cases, case law recognized debts that would be excluded from the balance of resources, but in such a case the person claiming the absence of sharing in the debts must prove that the debts accumulated in the name of the parties are not shared, since this is the exception to the rule" (emphasis added). In that case, it was further held that "it was not proven by the respondent that these loans were taken illegally in the course of the appellant's unusual or unreasonable activity, and therefore the respondent must be a partner in them. The respondent's argument that there is no reason to obligate her to participate in the mandatory balances or losses of these businesses, since the appellant did not ask her opinion as to their management and took loans on them of his own opinion without consulting her [...] is not sufficient [...] It has not been proven by her that the loans or debts accumulated in the business were caused by the appellant's unusual or unreasonable activity" (emphases added). The case law further discussed the exceptional cases in which a personal debt will be excluded from the mass of joint debts for the balance in the determination (emphases are not in the original); that "in exceptional cases, case law has recognized the exclusion of debt from the balance of resources, so that debts of a distinctly personal nature will be excluded from the balance of resources, such as: debts created by expenses on separate property, expenses incurred in breach of trust (such as: expenses to maintain a mistress), debts created as a result of unusual actions, such as 'financial manipulation'. However, in such a case, the person claiming to remove a personal debt from the balance of resources must show that it is a debt that cannot be balanced. For this purpose, it is necessary to examine the nature of the alleged debt, the manner in which it was created, whether it originated from a balancable asset or not, and while exercising discretion and minimizing the infringement of the proprietary rights of any of the parties [...] The mother's argument that there is no reason to obligate her to participate in the mandatory balances or the losses is not sufficient because the father did not ask her opinion as to their management and took loans on their own accord without consulting her" (Civil Appeal 8791/00 Shalem v. Twinko in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (13 December 2006)..."
- We will apply it in our case. In the actuary's opinion there is a detail regarding lenders who allegedly gave money to the defendant and that according to the law, the plaintiff must bear half of it. In his opinion, the honorable actuary referred to a number of loans taken out by the defendant and which were detailed in the affidavit submitted for his review. The defendant's affidavit in this regard constitutes evidence on the basis of which the actuary drew up his opinion, noting with a caveat that his opinion is valid, insofar as these are indeed loans of binding validity.
- On page 2 of the actuary's opinion, 6 loans were allegedly taken by the defendant and amounted to ILS 411,400. The escorts are: A.P., M.P., M.N., 12, H.Z., B.L. The plaintiff asked to interrogate only the escorts A.P., H.Z. andcompany commander. It follows from this that in the absence of a direct attack on the defendant's affidavit, and because the affidavit is evidence for all intents and purposes, the defendant's version regarding the other loans that were taken and which were expressed in the actuary's opinion should be accepted, in the absence of any other evidence, or in fact a valid contradictory claim on the part of the plaintiff (Civil Case (Tel Aviv-Jaffa District) 38774-12-16 Weber v. Roash, [Nevo] (May 11, 2025)).
- Let us now move on and examine the loans in relation to the lending parties who testified before me. A. (in my understanding this is the escort "A.P.") testified and was interrogated before me on February 5, 2026. His testimony showed that he lent the defendant the sum of approximately ILS 200,000 because he was a close friend of the defendant. The sum has not been returned to him to this day. The testimony of the aforementioned was found to be credible, and it gave the impression that indeed the sum was not returned to the lender by the defendant. The cross-examination did not raise concerns that the sum was not transferred to the defendant, or that it was a conspiracy between him and the defendant. The sum was transferred to the defendant back in 2019, and therefore, this loan should be recognized as a joint debt and as determined in the actuary's opinion.
- In order to prove the issue of the loans, the defendant attached to his exhibits file Appendix 16, which contains two loan agreements. One, with the P's, and the other, with Mr. H.Z. According to the loan agreement with the P's, on June 30, 2019, the defendant borrowed the sum of ILS 220,000 from them. Both spouses were interrogated before me and their testimony revealed that this was a loan that the defendant received from them, regardless of any specific transaction. In any case, Mr. M.P. testified before me on February 5, 2026, and claimed that the defendant had asked him for a loan in order to cover his debts, while noting that he had innocently distracted the matter of the banquet hall (see the minutes of the hearing of February 5, 2026, page 42, line 34). From this testimony it can be learned that the defendant indeed borrowed money for the purpose of closing joint debts, which is natural to believe, and in any case it has not been proven otherwise, that due to the collapse of the joint business, debts were created that the defendant was forced to repay. As explained above, these duties are shared.
- It is also important to note in the context of Mr. P.'s testimony that he testified that the defendant's debt to him was not cleared before the date of the rupture. On the contrary, according to his testimony, "most of the debt, or all of the debt" was not returned to him by the defendant before the date of the rupture, i.e., October 2021. See the minutes of the hearing of February 5, 2026, page 40, lines 32 to 36. From the entirety of the testimony of the P's, together with the written document attached as part of Appendix 16, it appears that the sum was indeed transferred to the defendant for the purpose of covering other debts, and in any case the sum was not returned to them prior to the date of the rupture. Therefore, again, in the absence of any other evidence, this debt must be recognized as a joint debt.
- I came to a different conclusion regarding the loan that was taken from H.Z. In Appendix 16 to the defendant's exhibits file, the loan agreement between Mr. Z. and the defendant was attached . The agreement is dated July 21, 2021, i.e., less than three months before the date of the rupture. According to the agreement, entitled "Loan Deed", Mr. Z. lent the defendant the sum of ILS 190,000 and the sum was supposed to be returned to him until and no later than March 22, 2022. H.Z. testified before me on February 5, 2026, and his testimony revealed the following facts:
- The witness served as a couples counselor (for salary) for the couple after the plaintiff approached him for help.
During the couples therapy that the latter provided to the parties, he realized that the defendant had debts and wanted to help him. The witness stated that he offered the sum to the defendant and only afterwards, i.e., after the transfer of the sum and I understand after a long period of time, did he inform the plaintiff about the loan. The witness himself called the matter a "very strange story" (transcript of the hearing of February 5, 2026, page 32, line 7). At a later stage in his interrogation, the witness testified that he felt that he had entangled the plaintiff with a loan to which she was not a party (transcript of the hearing of February 5, 2026, page 34, lines 27 to 35).
- It should also be emphasized that the loan was taken from a therapeutic entity that allegedly treated both spouses, due to the crisis in the relationship that befell them. The defendant did not tell the plaintiff about this loan that was taken from the therapeutic entity, and worse than that - the therapeutic factor in which the plaintiff planted her security, he also did not tell her that he had given her spouse a loan in the amount of ILS 190,000 (while the two were being cared for by him and he was collecting them fees).
- The fact is that the loan was taken from the couples therapist less than three months before the date of the rupture. It is also reasonable to determine that at the time of taking the loan, the couple's relationship was shaky, since the two received marital counseling from the lender prior to their separation. The defendant acted in denial, when he did not inform the plaintiff of a loan he was taking from a man of faith, he took a step before their separation. The defendant anticipated, or at least could have expected, that their relationship towards the end and the loan money would be used only by him . This is an unusual business move and "financial manipulation", and therefore, I am unable to determine that the plaintiff must bear the repayment of half of this loan.
- This is how it was decided in Civil Appeal 8791/00 Shalem v. Twinco Ltd., [Nevo] (December 13, 2006), by President Aharon Barak:
"The case law formulated a number of exceptions that numb the sting of the debt-sharing rule, including debts of a clearly personal nature; debts created by expenses on separate property; Expenses incurred in the course of a breach of trust, for example, for the purpose of keeping a lover or lover (see: The Levy case, at p. 820; the David case, at p. 461; the Sitin case, at pp. 7-16; Civil Appeal 592/79 Shatzky v. Sayed, IsrSC 35(4) 402, 414. hereinafter: the Shetzky Affair). Against this background, a debt created as a result of an unusual action, defined as "financial manipulation", of one of the spouses was not recognized as a joint venture (see, The Giberstein Case, at p. 666). As in the rule of sharing in rights, so too with respect to the rule of sharing in debts: the burden of proof that a certain debt arises from the applicability of the sharing of debts is on the party who claims it (see, The David Case, at p. 461)." (Emphasis added).
- The question of what constitutes "financial manipulation" has not received a clear and unequivocal answer in case law. However, in the case before us, it appears that the defendant's action was unusual in view of the timing of the receipt of the loan as well as the party that granted it, and in this regard I do not exclude the possibility that precisely in view of the close relationship he forged with the defendant he was subject to influence on his part. In any case, the plaintiff had no access to that loan that was made behind her back when she experienced a severe crisis in her relationship with the defendant. The circumstances of receiving the loan show that the plaintiff was denied natural access to information and had no practical influence in making a decision to receive the sum of ILS 190,000. This is a large sum that exceeds all the joint assets of the parties (excluding the apartment) that the defendant worked to obtain, while operating in the "gray area". Here it is also worth noting that I reject the defendant's claim that he took the loan from Mr. Z. in order to repay the loan to the P.s., since Mr. Meir P. testified that the defendant returned the loan to him, bit by bit. He testified as follows:
"The answer is that Mr. R.B. returned the money to me in very small stages and in small beats, over a period of several years until the last year. There was no orderly return, no clear return, this is something that also caused me sorrow."