Supreme Court Rules WhatsApp Message Promising Penthouse Is Revocable Gift
The Supreme Court ruled that a WhatsApp message promising a penthouse to a former common-law partner was merely a promise to make a gift, which the sender could legally revoke, overturning a lower court decision.
A WhatsApp message sent by a businessman to his former common-law partner promised her a penthouse apartment, sparking a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling, determining that the message constituted at most a promise to make a gift, from which the sender was legally entitled to withdraw.
The case involved a couple who maintained a relationship as common-law partners for approximately two decades and share children. When they first met, the man owned a company and later achieved a successful business exit, accumulating substantial assets, including apartments and capital. The dispute centered around two main documents: a note written on New Year's Eve and a WhatsApp message.
In her initial property claim filed at the Family Court, the woman demanded half of all the assets accumulated during their shared life under the presumption of property sharing. The man argued that there was no intent to share assets and that they operated under a regime of financial separation. The Family Court ruled that based on the New Year's Eve note, which stated that all accumulated property was one hundred percent shared, the presumption of property sharing applied to assets registered solely in the man's name.
The Appellate Turn and the WhatsApp Message
In February 2026, the Tel Aviv District Court overturned the core ruling, accepting the man's appeal and determining that financial separation had indeed governed their relationship. The District Court ruled that the note could not be used as proof of sharing, noting that the woman had concealed an ongoing romantic affair with the man's close friend at the time she had him sign the document, thereby misrepresenting the situation.
However, the District Court introduced a surprising twist involving a WhatsApp message sent by the man after their separation, in which he explicitly wrote that the penthouse apartment would be registered in her name. The District Court ruled that this specific message was clear and indicated a complete willingness to transfer the property, ordering the man to hand over the penthouse free of any debts or liens.
Supreme Court Reverses Penthouse Transfer
Represented by attorney Orit Dror Harel, the businessman filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. A panel of judges, led by Justice Yael Wilner alongside Justices David Mintz and Gila Canfy-Steinitz, fully accepted the appeal.
Justice Wilner ruled that even assuming the message constituted a valid promise to make a gift, the man was entitled to withdraw from it. The court noted that the woman herself had not claimed in her initial pleadings that the message represented a gift commitment. Furthermore, the message lacked the necessary detail to demonstrate serious intent and binding resolve, leading the Supreme Court to cancel the order transferring the penthouse.
