See: Family file (Tel Aviv): 52231/09 [published in the online databases [Nevo]].
- In addition, see Prof. Shahar Lifshitz's article "On Family and Financial Relations", Amendment No. 4 to the Spousal Property Relations Law, 5733-1973, from the journal "Laws", vol. 1 (2009), on page 298 onwards.
Below I will quote the words in their own words:
"... According to my interpretation, the provisions of section 8 authorize, but do not obligate, the courts to include future assets, or to relate to them when balancing resources. In my opinion, it is precisely the possibility of not distributing the supplement to earning capacity that is of great importance, practical and principled. From a practical point of view, I am of the opinion that the complexity of the actuarial calculations involved in calculating earning capacity and the difficulty in realizing this asset make it clear that the division of earning capacity should not be turned into a remedy given in every old case, and it should be applied to cases in which a real and clear gap has been created between the spouses in terms of their earning capacity, and this gap can be attributed to an unequal division of roles at the time of marriage. On the other hand, in my opinion, in the case of an egalitarian couple who combined career and household chores during the marriage, and at some point a non-dramatic gap was created in addition to the earning capacity of one of them, there is no need to activate the complex mechanism of distributing earning capacity."
- I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidentiary basis laid by the parties, it appears that the earning capacity of the parties should be taken into account and included as a balanced asset, and it appears that the three conditions as aforesaid are met in our case: the parties were married for a long period of about 22 years soon, they had three children together, and the income gap between them is dramatic, three times as much, when it is clear that the plaintiff was the "domestic" spouse while the defendant was the "careerist" spouse.
- From all of the above, and in order to prevent an unequal and unjust result, I found that I accept the plaintiff's petition and exercise my authority in accordance with section 8(2) of the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 and adopt the provisions of chapter E 2, E 3(b) of the opinion, and in addition to generalizing the earning capacity of the parties as a balanced "marital asset", This includes the adoption of a calculation of balancing the earnings gaps between the parties that the expert made as detailed in Chapter E, Section 4A of the opinion.
Distribution of movables
- The plaintiff claimed that the movables should be divided into two lists, or alternatively, that the defendant should be instructed to pay half of their value, which the defendant left for himself and his new wife, whose value was estimated by the plaintiff at approximately ILS 140,000.
- However, neither in the statement of claim nor in the affidavits of the main witness were the movables that were requested to be distributed, and even during the interrogation of the parties, counsel for the parties did not address this issue, the appointment of an expert was not requested, and it appears that it was neglected.
- The attachment of documents regarding the purchase of new movables by the plaintiff as she attached to the statement of claim does not prove her claims, and in general, the manner in which the parties conducted themselves in the issue of movables cannot be discussed in a substantive manner and therefore I reject the remedy required with respect to the movables.
Balancing the lineups
- Regarding the tractor - the plaintiff waived her rights in it - see the words of her counsel in the minutes of the hearing of October 29, 2024, paragraph 20, when regarding the Kia Rio and the Toyota car mentioned on page 9 of the opinion - I order that the equivalents must be balanced in accordance with the instructions that will be given later in this judgment.
Conclusion:
- I order that the clause of condition that was registered on the marriage contract between the parties is null and void, and that the Property Relations between Spouses Law, 5733-1973 will apply to the parties.
- The balance of resources between the parties will be carried out in accordance with the actuary's report dated May 26, 2024, hereinafter: The "Opinion" as follows:
- Regarding the liquidity rights, a balance will be made as detailed in chapter E of section 2 of the opinion.
- Regarding non-liquid rights - a balance will be made as detailed in Chapter E of Sections 3 B (1) + 3 B (2) of the opinion - the balance will be made in accordance with the provisions of the Law for the Distribution of Pension Savings between Spouses Who Separated, 5774 - 2014. - Rulings will be submitted for my signature.
- As for the income gaps, it will be carried out as detailed in paragraph 4A of the opinion.
- The parties will contact an expert in order to update the amounts in the opinion from the date of the decision until the issuance of this judgment.
- Regarding the Kia Rio and Toyota vehicles mentioned on page 9 of the opinion, I order the appointment of a vehicle appraiser for the purpose of balancing the two vehicles between the parties, the identity of the appraiser will be determined by the Appraisers Association in Israel, counsel for the parties will submit a joint ruling addressed to the Appraisers Association in Israel for my signature, the value of the vehicles will be balanced between the parties in accordance with the appraiser's opinion within 30 days of receiving the opinion.
- Regarding the joint bank account - I instruct the parties to cooperate in order to separate the account in such a way that the plaintiff's name will be deleted from the account, all subject to the bank's procedures.
- In light of the result I have reached, I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff legal expenses in the total amount of ILS 15,000, which will be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment.
- The Secretariat will provide the judgment to the parties and close the case.
It can be published without identifying information.