Family file (Jerusalem) 31375-07-19 E.C. v. 20 - part 6

In this regard, see also Family Case (Safed Family) 37754-01-16 L.N.  v.  R.N.  (November 28, 2019), in which a claim to cancel a prenuptial agreement was dismissed due to a fundamental error regarding the profitability of the defendant's business and its misleading action.  It was held that "as to the business - the plaintiff was involved in the business, worked there and knew what the income from the business was.  To the extent that she needed additional information in the framework of the judicial process, she was given the opportunity to receive any relevant information."

44. Similarly, in our case, the plaintiff could have checked the business data, but she chose not to do so, agreed to a separation of property in 2015 and declared that she was aware that the value of the company may exceed what she is aware of, and she has no claims in this regard. Therefore, as stated, its claim to cancel the agreement on the basis of error or deception regarding the value of the company is rejected.

Funds in bank account in CHASE bank in USA

45. The plaintiff claims in her pleadings and affidavits that she only discovered after the separation (around April 2019) that the defendant had an active account at CHASE Bank in the United States. She claimed that shortly after the signing of the prenuptial agreement in 2018, there was a huge sum of at least $399, 989 in this account.  She emphasizes that if she had known of the existence of these huge sums, she would not have agreed in any way to sign the prenuptial agreement and waive it.
46. The plaintiff clarifies that she did know in the past (in 2016) about the opening of the account, but only for the purpose of the visa expenses and planning the family's move to the United States. She claims that she forgot about the existence of the account and that she did not imagine that it was an active account, and certainly not that it contained hundreds of thousands of dollars.  According to her version, this was a deliberate concealment by the defendant, who presented her with a false representation all along that he had no assets other than the business and the store.
47. In her oral interrogation and affidavits, the plaintiff detailed that the discovery of the sum occurred only on April 9, 2019, when her sister and brother-in-law sent her a letter from the bank detailing a balance of "$399, 989.01" from the September-October 2018 period. She emphasized to the court that the existence of a bank account does not indicate knowledge of the transactions and amounts in it: "To open an account, it is possible to open an account and do nothing with it." According to her, the defendant's attempts to link the money from the distribution of the apartments from 2015 to the account in the United States were not proven and constitute baseless claims.
48. On the other hand, the defendant claims in his statements of defense and affidavits that the plaintiff lied to the court and knew very well about the account and the funds deposited in it prior to the signing of the agreement. He clarifies that the account was opened on "07/12/2016" (or 12.07.2016) with the direct assistance of the plaintiff's sister, Racheli Mintz, who lives in the United States.  Since the defendant was not an American citizen at the time, the sister's address was recorded as the official address for sending mail from the bank.
49. The defendant claims that the bank documents and account status were sent monthly to the nurse's house, who opened them, photographed them and sent them to the plaintiff, who showed them to him or sent them to him on WhatsApp. As evidence of this, he presents a WhatsApp correspondence dated October 19, 2017 (about 10 months before the agreement was signed), in which the plaintiff sent him a document from the bank in the United States attesting to a balance of approximately $300, 000.  According to him, this fact completely refutes her claim that she forgot about the account or did not know that there were funds in it.
50. Regarding the source of the funds, the defendant claims that these are not new or hidden funds, but rather funds received from the parties' division of property in 2015. According to his version, the parties agreed at the time that the total amount of money to be distributed from the sale of the apartments was ILS 2, 300, 000, and that most of it was transferred to an account in the United States, inter alia through his cousin Y7.  The defendant adds that in the 2018 agreement, it was explicitly stipulated under the "separate property" that any bank account registered in the name of one of the parties would remain in its sole ownership.
51. In summaries and oral hearings, counsel for the defendant emphasized that the recording of the plaintiff's sister's address on the account negates any intention of concealment on his part and creates a clear presumption of knowledge. On the other hand, the plaintiff's counsel referred to an account statement dated 06/03/2018 (ten days before the approval of the agreement) showing a balance of $399, 989, and emphasized that the defendant did not deny the existence of this sum at the time the agreement was approved.  He concluded that this was a blatant concealment of smuggled joint funds, which justified the cancellation of the prenuptial agreement.
52. The plaintiff's claim regarding the bank account in CHASE should be rejected. In this regard, I am convinced that the defendant did not try to conceal the existence of the account, and when the address of the account was the home of the plaintiff's sister, the monthly reports reached her.  Since the testimonies of the parties showed that the sister even opened the letters from the bank, photocopied the account statements and sent them to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's version that she forgot about the existence of the account and did not imagine that it contained such large sums of money should not be accepted.  Moreover, the defendant's explanation that the money in the account was his share in exchange for the sale of the parties' apartments in Beit Shemesh was also not ruled out.  Given that this is a request to cancel a prenuptial agreement that was approved, and the burden on the applicant for cancellation is particularly heavy, the conclusion is that she did not lift this burden and did not prove concealment or fraud on the part of the defendant.  Even if I were to accept her version that she forgot about the account and did not imagine that it contained funds in the amount of $400, 000, this would not be enough to bring about the cancellation of the prenuptial agreement, and her claims in this regard should be addressed to herself and not to others.

The rights to the store/warehouse on XXX Street in B

53. The plaintiff claims in her pleadings and affidavits that the defendant concealed from her the existence of a large warehouse on XXX Street in the city of B., which was purchased during the joint life and is transferred to the signing of the prenuptial agreement in 2018. According to her version, she did not know about the existence of the warehouse and that its existence was only discovered to her after the separation through a "wise investigation" (paragraph 6.3 of the plaintiff's reply of September 10, 2019), since the property is not registered in the Land Registry or the Israel Lands Administration.  She emphasizes that the defendant did not mention this property at any stage, not in conversations with her, not before the court when approving the agreement (where he declared only a store in Beitar) and not before the attorney A.A.  who drafted the agreement.
54. On the other hand, the defendant claims in his statement of defense and affidavits that this is not a warehouse but a space, located under a residential building, which was purchased around 2016 for approximately ILS 400, 000. According to him, the space was purchased through a loan taken from his business account and was intended to serve as a warehouse for storing goods of the company "XXX", which he owns, and therefore it is an asset of the company.  The defendant emphasizes that the plaintiff knew about the space from the moment she purchased it, since he told her about it, and if he had not shared it with her, she would never have known about it in the absence of an orderly proprietary registration.
55. As part of the documents discovery and investigations proceedings, the defendant declared that he had purchased the space from Mr. K. In 2016, in exchange for ILS 400, 000, he financed it through a loan from the business bank, but since the transaction was mainly done "verbally" and the space is not regulated in any registration, he does not have a written sales contract or receipts.  In her interrogation, the plaintiff denied his claim that she knew about the purchase in real time, and objected to his attempt to exempt himself from presenting documents on the grounds that the transaction was verbal, while noting that it was unlikely that a real estate property would be purchased without any written contract.  The defendant replied that he had attached the seller's mobile number, Mr. K.  As part of his efforts to invent information.
56. In his summary, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant completely failed to prove that the plaintiff knew about the space or gave it up, and that in the transcripts of the recordings that were presented, he continued to present her with a false representation that the only property in his possession was the store in B-B.. On the other hand, the defendant's counsel concluded and claimed that the plaintiff knew well about the space and that she had explicitly and clearly waived XXX and the company's "assets".  Since the space was purchased for the needs of the business, paid from the company's account and was used to store goods, it was included in the plaintiff's sweeping waiver of the business and in any case it has no rights therein.
57. The lawsuit of the plaintiff's claims regarding the warehouse in B. To be rejected.  From the testimonies of the parties, it appears that the warehouse constitutes a business asset of the defendant's company, XXX Ltd.  His claim that the property was purchased through a loan taken from the business account and intended to serve as a warehouse for storing the company's merchandise, and therefore it is an asset of the company.  The plaintiff did not seek to summon the seller of the property to testify, and thus avoided a more in-depth investigation of the purchase transaction of the warehouse in a manner that might shed light on the dispute in this matter.  The plaintiff did not specify how and when she learned of the existence of the warehouse, and it is not enough to say in general that she learned about the property through a "wise investigation".  Since it was not proven that the plaintiff did not know about the property prior to the signing of the agreement, as she claimed, and since it emerged that it was a property of the company whose value the parties had agreed would not be balanced, the plaintiff did not meet the burden imposed on her to show that it was a balancing asset, the non-inclusion of which in the agreement justifies its cancellation.  Therefore, as stated, the claim regarding the warehouse is rejected.

The rights to a cottage apartment on XXX Street in Beit Shemesh

58. The plaintiff claims in her pleadings and affidavits that the defendant purchased a right to a cottage apartment on XXX Street in Beit Shemesh during their life together, and hid it from her before signing the prenuptial agreement in 2018. According to her version, the defendant presented her with a false representation that the apartment was not his, but belonged to his cousin, Mr. Y.Z., and that he would only register it in his name temporarily.  Due to this representation, according to which the property does not belong to the defendant, the plaintiff did not demand rights in the property at the time of signing the agreement.
59. In her oral interrogations (in hearings on December 1, 2019 and November 26, 2025), the plaintiff admitted that she knew during the marriage that the property was registered in the defendant's name, but reiterated the claim that she had been misled into thinking that the substantial ownership belonged to Z.. She testified that she saw an unsigned letter/note in which it was written that the property belonged to Z., and that it was only after the separation that she learned that it was not a matter of true loyalty, but of a false representation.  It is currently petitioning to receive half of the rights in the property or alternatively to receive ILS 142, 500 (half of the sum of ILS 285, 000 actually paid for it).
60. On the other hand, the defendant claims in his defense statements and affidavits that the plaintiff knew about the purchase of the rights in Beit Shemesh in real time, as early as 2015, and even informed him of the delays in the acquisition group "XXX". According to him, the plaintiff's knowledge reached her because the husband of one of her clients at the cosmetics institute was involved in the project and informed her.  The defendant confirms that the registration was in his name, but that the property was substantially related to the 17th, as reflected in the note written between them (Appendix 13).
61. The defendant explains that the transaction in 2015 was "only on paper" in the amount of ILS 440, 000 and was delayed due to the change of lawyers in the acquisition group. Only at the end of 2018, many months after the signing of the prenuptial agreement, did he actually arrange the joining, signed a sharing agreement on November 8, 2018, and paid the sum of ILS 320, 000 from his own funds (the plaintiff's interrogation on November 26, 2025, at p.  54, para.  24 of the transcript).  According to him, since the substantial purchase was completed after the approval of the prenuptial agreement that established a separation of property, the plaintiff has no right to the property.
62. In summaries and oral hearings, the plaintiff's counsel argued that the defendant's version regarding Z. It constitutes a "clear expansion of the front" as the name of Z.  It was not mentioned at all in the statement of defense.  It was further claimed that in an affidavit in response to the questionnaire, the defendant admitted that at the time of signing the agreement, he already had rights to the property, thus contradicting his claim that he purchased the property only in November 2018.  On the other hand, counsel for the defendant concluded that the defendant had proven that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the registration and the accounting with Z.  prior to the signature, and therefore it was not misled in any way.
63. The plaintiff's claim in relation to the property in Beit Shemesh should be rejected. The plaintiff, who knew about the transaction and that the property was registered in the defendant's name, claims that she was misled into thinking that the registration did not reflect ownership and that the real ownership belonged to the defendant's cousin, Y.Z.  The defendant presented evidence that he paid for the property only after the prenuptial agreement was made between the parties, and therefore it was not a joint or balanced asset.  His version was not hidden.  The plaintiff could have summoned the same Y.Z., who was apparently deeply involved in the transaction and presumably knew its details, and thus tried to prove her claims that the property belonged to the defendant in the first place, and not only from November 2018, as he claimed.  Since it did not do so and did not bring other evidence to contradict the defendant's explanations, it did not bear the heavy burden imposed on it to prove that it was misled and deceived in relation to this property, in a manner that justifies the cancellation of the prenuptial agreement.  Therefore, as stated, her argument in this matter is rejected.

Rights in the penthouse apartment on XXX Street, Jerusalem

64. As detailed above, with regard to this apartment, the plaintiff claims that the defendant purchased it from his parents during the period of their joint life, while the defendant claims that he received it as a gift without any consideration.
65. The defendant does not deny that he concealed from the plaintiff the fact that he owned the apartment, and the mention of it is not mentioned in the prenuptial agreement. He explains this by saying that the receipt of the apartment from his parents was a secret from his brother, and in order not to be revealed, he also concealed it from the plaintiff.
66. In these circumstances, the rule of admission and dismissal applies, since the defendant admits to hiding the property from the plaintiff but provides an explanation for this, which he must prove. Therefore, the burden of persuasion in this matter is entirely on him.
67. After carefully examining the arguments of the parties and the evidence presented, my conclusion is that the defendant did not meet the burden of persuasion in his version that he received the apartment as a gift and concealed this fact because it was a secret from all his brothers. Therefore, the fact remains that the property is hidden from the plaintiff and the rule applies according to which if there is no mention, there is no waiver and the result is that this apartment is included in the balance of resources between the parties and the plaintiff is entitled to half of its value.
68. First, the defendant's refusal to summon his parents to testify is highly suspicious, since this is necessary and essential testimony to prove his claim that he received the apartment as a gift. It is a well-known rule that a party's failure to bring a relevant witness or vital evidence at his disposal, without a reasonable explanation, establishes a presumption that if the evidence had been brought or the testimony had been heard, it would have acted in his duty and weakened his version.

See CA 7300/21 Moshe Michel Asraf v.  Kfir Bublil [March 12, 2024]: