Supreme Court ruled: A woman will receive half of the apartment, despite it being registered only in her husband's name
Judge Alex Stein rejected the husband's appeal, who claimed the property was purchased with his father's money. It was determined that investment and long-term cohabitation created an intent of sharing, while the wife's apartment will remain her sole property.
The Supreme Court ruled this week that a woman is entitled to half the rights in the apartment registered in her husband's name following their separation. The couple divorced after 25 years of marriage and 35 years of partnership. During the marriage, in 2006, the apartment in Kiryat Ono was purchased and registered in the husband's name. During the marriage, the wife inherited another apartment from her mother, which was registered in her name in 2018.
The husband claimed that the apartment belongs to him and was bought with gift money from his late father. The wife claimed that the apartment also belongs to her, considering the long duration of their life together and the fact that the apartment is a distinct family asset. The wife also claimed that she was the "driving force" in choosing the apartment and renovating it, with all invoices issued in her name.
The Family Court ruled that the woman will receive half of the apartment. It was determined that it was proven that the apartment was partially financed by the couple's joint funds, which were transferred to the husband's father; the husband presented the wife with a representation of sharing and did not tell her that the apartment was not hers, and the couple lived in this apartment together for many years and carried out renovations together. Furthermore, it was determined that the husband failed to prove that the apartment was given to him personally as a gift, and there is no parallel between the two properties - the apartment and the inherited apartment - due to their different nature, the time they were received, and the lack of indication that the couple intended to hold the inherited apartment together.
The husband appealed to the District Court, which rejected the appeal. The husband did not give up and filed a request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This week, Judge Alex Stein rejected the request.
The court emphasized - one should not create an artificial symmetry between different assets.
Stein noted that upon the expiration of the marriage, each of the spouses is, as a rule, entitled to half the value of all the spouses' assets. This is excluding external assets. These include assets that one of the spouses brought into the relationship or assets that the spouse received as a gift or inheritance during the joint life and are registered in their name only. Anyone claiming a "specific sharing" in an external asset must prove that beyond the mere existence of a joint marriage life, even if prolonged, there is the existence of "something extra". This is a factual detail that indicates the intent of sharing of both spouses in that asset. "Something extra" may be found, for example, in joint financial investments in the asset, in promises or representations by the registered spouse. If it is the couple's apartment, the burden of proof required to prove the sharing in it is easier, but even regarding it, one must prove beyond marriage life.
Judge Stein ruled that although the apartment was registered in the husband's name only, it was purchased during the couple's marriage, and the claim that the apartment was given to him as a gift was rejected by the previous instances, and the judge did not intervene in this. As for the wife's inherited apartment, it was registered three years before the date of the rift in the wife's name, and this does not change the sharing in the apartment.
The woman was represented by Adv. Eitan Shalev Solkin.
According to Adv. Yehudit Meisels, an expert in family and inheritance law and a lecturer in family law at the College of Management: "The ruling gives supreme status to apartments and facilitates the possibility of proving that an apartment that served as a family residence, even if registered only in the name of one of the spouses and even if it belonged to that party even before the marriage, can thus become shared under certain circumstances.
"Thus, for example, when spouses live in an apartment for many years, invest in it together, treat it as their shared home, and a clear representation of sharing is created, it is possible to recognize the rights of the other spouse in it."
Alongside this, Adv. Meisels notes that the court also knows how to stop this sharing from touching other external assets, thus creating a balance: "The court emphasizes that one should not necessarily create an artificial symmetry between different assets. The fact that an inherited apartment remained in the wife's separate ownership does not negate sharing in the apartment. Each asset is examined according to its circumstances, but the overall property conduct of the spouses is an important part of the evidentiary picture."
