Family Case (Tel Aviv) 21646-06-11 A.N. v. A.N. [Nevo] (September 4, 2017)).
- The grounds for intervention in a professional opinion prepared by an expert are limited to exceptional and exceptional cases in which the expert acted in deviation from authority or contrary to the rules of natural justice, unfairly or fraudulently. Except in such cases, there is no room to challenge the professional judgment of the expert.
See: Family Case (Rishon LeZion) 29971-10-11 M.S. v. D.D. [Nevo] (February 28, 2017).
Family Case (Nazareth) 32491-05-10 R.B. v. A.B. [Nevo] (August 5, 2014).
- The parties did not make a claim that eroded the status of the opinion, no clarification questions were conveyed to him, and even if they were conveyed, they did not change the opinion, no evidence was presented contradicting its findings, the expert was not interrogated, and therefore, after carefully examining the opinion, I am convinced that the relevant documents were examined and the necessary checks were carried out - I adopt the findings of the opinion.
The parties' arguments for the implementation of the balance by means of an unequal division between the spouses:
- In her statement of claim and in her summaries, the plaintiff claimed an unequal division on the grounds of professional neglect in favor of her husband - the defendant, raising the children and maintaining the family unit.
- The defendant also claimed in his statement of defense and in his summaries that the division was unequal since the wife - the plaintiff did not make any contribution to the accumulation of assets and rights throughout the years of the marriage, and that it was canceled in a manner that did not realize her earning potential.
- The legal significance of the parties' detailed mutual claims regarding the unequal division between them of their joint assets is that they both petition and ask the court to exercise its authority and make use of section 8(2) of the Spouses' Property Relations Law, 5733-1973, hereinafter: the Law.
- Before deciding on these mutual motions, I will discuss the court's authority and considerations to make use of section 8 of the law, which allows for a deviation from the basic principles that exist on the issue of the division of property between spouses with regard to the balance of resources ratio and its timing.
- Having determined that the Prenuptial Relations Law between Spouses 5733-1973 will apply to the parties, hereinafter: "the Property Relations Law", "the Law", it is known that the applicable rule is that upon dissolution of the marriage, each of the spouses is entitled to half of the value of all the couple's assets in accordance with section 5 of the Law.
- Section 8(2) The law grants the court discretion to act in accordance with the rule of equal division for the balance of the couple's resources and allows for a deviation from the rule of equal distribution in the balance of rights:
"If the court or tribunal sees special circumstances that justify it, it may, at the request of one of the spouses - if the financial relationship was not ruled in a judgment for dissolution of marriage - to do one or more of the following within the framework of the balance of resources: