A woman moved to Israel after marrying a blind man, relying on his parents' promise of the apartment. Following their separation, the family attempted to dispossess them of the apartment due to the absence of a written contract.
The Court held that the apartment belongs to the couple in equal shares by virtue of the "cry of fairness" doctrine, which overrides the absence of a written document. The Israeli Land Law and Gift Law require a written document as a substantive condition for the validity of an undertaking to grant real estate as a gift. However, the Court applied the "cry of fairness" doctrine, which is based on the principle of good faith and allows overcoming the absence of a written document. The doctrine is applied in exceptional cases where there is significant reliance by the injured party, who detrimentally changed their position based on the promise, alongside extremely bad faith by the party seeking to renege on the undertaking, to the point where equity and justice cry out against allowing the cancellation of the transaction. In our case, the woman fulfilled her part of the spousal and family commitment: she cared for the man, who was disabled with 100% disability, contributed to the family's livelihood, and supported him for 30 years relying on the promise of shelter. However, the parents and the sister acted in extremely bad faith in their attempt to dispossess her of the apartment upon the end of the marriage. Therefore, the apartment belongs to the couple in equal shares.