Family file (Jerusalem) 31375-07-19 E.C. v. 20 - part 2

The value of the defendant's business ("XXXX Company")

9. The plaintiff claims that the defendant presented it with a positive and false misrepresentation that the business is in debt and that "there are few profits that are not profitable", while the actuary's opinion determined that as of the date of approval of the agreement on March 15, 2018, the value of the company is estimated at ILS 1, 226, 000. The defendant, on the other hand, claims that at the time the agreement was signed in 2015, the net profit was indeed low (in the sum of approximately ILS 100, 000 per year) and that at the hearing for the approval of the agreement in 2018, the plaintiff herself declared that she understood that the company might be worth more, and yet she waived her rights in it by giving it up completely.

Funds in bank account in CHASE bank in USA

10. The plaintiff claims that she knew that the defendant had previously opened a bank account abroad for the purpose of visa expenses, but she did not know that there were funds in this account in a very significant amount of about $400, 000. The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the plaintiff was well aware of the existence of the account in the United States, was involved in the details and was a partner in the knowledge of the sums contained in it.

The rights to the store/warehouse on XXXX Street in B.

11. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The plaintiff claims that she did not know of the existence of a warehouse registered in the name of defendant B. The defendant claims that the plaintiff knew about the property before the prenuptial agreement was signed, and that the store was purchased without registration in the Land Registry or the Administration from a person named XXX, whose existence was even explicitly mentioned during the court hearing to approve the agreement.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)The Rights in a Cottage Apartment on XXX Street in Beit Shemesh

12. The plaintiff claims that she did not know about the rights registered in the defendant's name to receive the cottage apartment, and alternatively, that the defendant presented her with a false representation that the apartment belonged to his cousin, Mr. Y.Z., which would only be registered in the defendant's name temporarily. The defendant claims that the plaintiff knew about the existence of the property, and that in practice there is a dispute and an open financial account between him and Y.Z.  in connection with this apartment.

Rights in the penthouse apartment on XXX Street, Jerusalem

13. The plaintiff claims that the defendant concealed from her this significant real estate asset, including a roof adjacent to the building, and that she has a series of evidence that he purchased the apartment from his parents and did not receive it as a gift, as he claimed. The defendant admits that he did not declare the apartment to the plaintiff, but claims that the apartment was received from his parents as a gift and therefore does not constitute a common property that can be balanced under the Property Relations Law, and that the non-disclosure stemmed from the joint desire of the family members to keep the transaction confidential for personal reasons.
14. The dispute regarding the apartment on XXX Street in Jerusalem (Block XXXX, Plot XX, Subplot XX) relates to the question of whether it is a penthouse apartment that was received as a gift from the defendant's parents in 2016, or whether it is a disguised purchase transaction. Counsel for the plaintiff argues that the defendant's version constitutes an "admission and dismissal" argument that shifts the burden of proof to him, since he admits that he did not disclose the existence of the apartment at the time the agreement was approved, but defends himself by claiming that it was a gift.
15. The plaintiff supports her version with a series of pieces of evidence that undermine the reasonableness of the gift transaction, including a transcript of a conversation (Appendix 8 to the affidavit) with the defendant's father, who explicitly admits that he sold the apartment to his son about five years ago (in a conversation from 2019), as well as a transcript of a conversation with the defendant (Appendix 10 to the affidavit) in which he admits that he paid his father "specifically I paid for it more expensive in the transaction I made" and another 100, $000 for the roof rights. In addition, the plaintiff points to direct money transfers from the defendant to his father, such as the sum of ILS 120, 000 in 2015 and 2016, and to the extreme unreasonableness that the parents (who have 12 children) transferred their only apartment as a gift and moved to a rented apartment.
16. On the other hand, the defendant relied on formal documents, including affidavits for the transfer of the apartment as a gift, which were signed before Adv. L.R. on October 27, 2016, and duly reported to the Tax Authority about a gift transaction.  In addition, affidavits were submitted by the parents, S.  and H.H.  20, dated October 27, 2019 and October 7, 2019, confirming that they gave the apartment to their son as a gift, although the parents did not appear to testify in court on the grounds that they were ill and afraid of the status.  The defendant explains his statements in the recordings as a "purely sale conversation" intended to keep the transaction secret from the other brothers, and explains his parents' decision to grant him the apartment by saying that he is the second and eldest son who was very involved in their lives and accompanied his father all along with money and assistance.
17. Counsel for the defendant further argues in his summaries that the apartment was transferred in a gift transaction that is not relevant to the balance of resources and therefore was not mentioned in the agreement, and that the burden of proving that the rights were purchased in exchange lies with the plaintiff who did not present any document or evidence of the transfer of funds. The defendant explains that the non-disclosure of the property stemmed from the fact that it was a family secret that the parents wanted to keep from the other siblings, and since the plaintiff was his wife at the time, the defendant did not want this to be revealed and known to the entire family.
18. Adapted from Navov It should be noted that the parties estimated the value of the apartment at between ILS 3.5 million and ILS 4.5 million (see a response regarding a request to cancel a foreclosure dated February 3, 2022).

Non-payment of ILS 1, 200, 000 and the validity of the agreements

19. The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not pay her the sum of ILS 1, 200, 000 that was promised to her in the 2015 agreement. However, in the statement of claim she claimed that he paid ILS 700, 000 of the debt by way of financing the purchase of an apartment for her in Jaffa and undertook to complete the payment of the debt by making mortgage payments on that apartment, a commitment that was violated a few months later when he informed her of his desire to divorce.  The defendant claims that the agreements are fully valid, were signed voluntarily and were lawfully approved by the court, and that the parties have acted in practice and maintained a complete separation of property since 2015.
20. The defendant claims that he paid the plaintiff the aforementioned debt over time and in various ways over the years, and that at the time of the signing of the prenuptial agreement in 2018, the parties were already in a balanced state. According to him, this fact is the reason why the 2018 agreement did not include any financial commitment of him to it.
21. The defendant specifies that the payment was made, inter alia, by transferring money in cash every time the plaintiff requested it ("her brother has a cash retrial") and by deducting the current household expenses. In addition, he alone paid a joint income tax debt from 2011-2012 in the sum of ILS 400, 000, half of which was supposed to apply to the plaintiff.
22. In addition, the defendant claims that already at the time of signing the agreement in 2015, he gave the plaintiff a check for the entire agreed amount, which was deposited by her in trust with her brother S.. The defendant emphasizes that the very fact that the plaintiff signed the 2018 agreement without any demand or mention of a financial debt, testifies to the fact that all the accounting between them was completed and they were balanced.
23. In conclusion, the plaintiff seeks to cancel the agreement and balance all the assets listed above between the parties.
24. On November 26, 2025, an evidentiary hearing was held in which the parties were questioned about their affidavits, and on December 15, 2025, oral summaries were heard.

Discussion and Decision

25. This is a claim to cancel a prenuptial agreement that was approved and received the force of a judgment.
26. According to case law, a prenuptial agreement that has been duly approved enjoys a special status, which combines both a contractual and a judicial aspect. Due to the unique approval mechanism that verifies discretion and free will, it was determined that the burden of contradicting the validity of the agreement and proving a defect in its conclusion (such as mistake, deception, oppression or coercion) is particularly heavy, and its cancellation will be done only in very rare and exceptional cases in which there are weighty reasons.

See Thess (Jerusalem) 27071-11-19 Anonymous v.  Anonymous [November 27, 2022]: