Ashdod Court Awards Pensioner Half of Shared Home After 31 Years of Cohabitation
The Ashdod Family Court has awarded a retired Ministry of Education employee 50% ownership of an Ashkelon home registered solely to his former partner of 31 years, citing his nine years of mortgage payments.
Property Dispute After 31 Years of Cohabitation
This case begins like a second-chance love story and ends in a courtroom. A man and a woman, both with adult children from previous relationships, lived together as cohabiting partners (known in Israel as "common-law spouses" or "Yeduim BaTzibur") for 31 years, from 1992 to 2023. They never married, had no joint children, and maintained strict property separation throughout their relationship—holding separate bank accounts and individual pension rights without a financial agreement. However, they failed to amicably divide the home they shared.
The dispute dates back to 2000, when the couple purchased an apartment in Ashkelon for approximately 600,000 NIS, registering it in both of their names. In 2007, the apartment was sold for 780,000 NIS. The proceeds, combined with a transferred mortgage, were used to purchase an alternative home in the same city for 840,000 NIS. This second property was registered solely in the woman's name and served as their joint home until their separation in 2023.
The conflict escalated when the relationship ended. The man, a retired Ministry of Education employee, claimed that he was the rightful owner of half the house despite the registration, based on an implied trust relationship between the parties. He argued that when the house was purchased, he was told there was a temporary obstacle to registering it in his name, which would be corrected later. In April 2024, he filed a lawsuit in the Ashdod Family Court, seeking a declaratory judgment recognizing his 50% ownership of the property.
Mortgage Payments as Evidence of Ownership
The primary evidence presented by the man was that from November 2011 to June 2020, he single-handedly paid the monthly mortgage on the house via direct debit from his personal account until it was fully paid off. He testified that he agreed to register the house solely in the woman's name based on legal advice from the attorney handling the transaction and out of complete trust in his partner.
Recalling the legal consultation, he testified:
"We sat down, consulted, and they called me and said: 'It is not advisable for you to sign now, wait until conditions are ripe and we will do it.'"
The woman, a retired psychotherapist, countered that she had funded the majority of the home purchase. She claimed that registering the property solely in her name was a historical correction, alleging she had previously been pressured into registering their first apartment jointly. She argued that the man's nine years of mortgage payments were merely a form of discounted rent, in exchange for which he also received laundry, cleaning, and food services.
The court rejected her defense. The judge noted that it was difficult to view the parties as mere roommates when they had maintained a joint household for over 30 years and had signed a National Insurance Institute ("Bituach Leumi") document stating that their grandchildren called the other partner "grandpa" and "grandma." Furthermore, the court ruled that paying a mortgage, unlike paying rent, increases the parties' net equity in a property—an action that makes little sense if the property did not belong to him.
Mutual Wills and the Court's Ruling
Judge Hila Ohayon Gliksman found further support for the man's claim in mutual wills signed by the couple in 2012, which stated that the woman's share of the house would pass to him upon her death. The man testified that when he sought to correct the property registration, the woman suggested making mutual wills instead.
The judge pointed out that the woman had secretly altered her will in 2019 without informing her partner, in direct violation of their mutual commitment. This action, the court ruled, reinforced the suspicion that she knew the original arrangement reflected a genuine agreement regarding joint ownership of the home.
Testimony from the attorney who handled the purchase transaction, who supported the woman's claim that he advised registering the property in her name because the man had not contributed financially, also failed to convince the court. The judge noted that the attorney's testimony was inconsistent, whereas the man's version of events was simple and consistent.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the man had successfully proven an implied trust relationship and issued a declaratory judgment declaring him the owner of 50% of the rights to the property. The judge added that the woman's refusal to transfer his share constituted bad faith and unfairness.
Both parties were criticized for their conduct during the litigation, which included repeated requests for postponements and excessively long submissions. Consequently, the woman was ordered to pay reduced legal costs of only 15,000 NIS.
