Agreements

No ! It is possible and simpler to make a new will which expressly cancels the former will.

The trend is for family courts not to enforce compensation undertakings by a mother which were part of a divorce agreement. This is because the Supreme Court has granted mothers legal protection in so far as it will only enforce a mother’s undertaking to compensate the father for breach of their divorce agreement if she is well-established financially.

However, the situation is different regarding the undertakings of a third party who may act as a guarantor. While family courts, which were established in the mid-nineties, have had a policy of not authorizing guarantees given by third parties to compensate one of the sides for breach of a divorce agreement, they will enforce existing guarantees which have already have been authorized by a court and which have already become part of a divorce judgment. Accordingly, a father against whom action has been brought for increased maintenance in breach of the divorce agreement authorized by a district court , can act against a guarantor. He can ask the court to order the guarantor to be responsible for paying the amount equivalent to the additional financial obligation which may be placed on the father’s shoulders as a result of the plea filed against him by his children.

If you live with your “ex” and then split up you could be endangering your rights, depending on the exact circumstances. If the matter were tested in court it is likely that your behaviour would be construed as implied consent to the cancellation of your “ex’s” maintenance obligation towards you. This would mean that this part of your divorce agreement would not be valid, even if the agreement was authorised in court and incorporated into a judgment. As regards any maintenance for your children, this would remain unaffected.

Alternatively, a possibility exists that the court would hold that the agreement about the maintenance was effectively frozen during your reconciliation but that it would become effective again if you split up again and would cease only if you re-married.

This would be very unlikely. Firstly, even if the father agreed to give up all these rights such an arrangement would be both illegal and unreasonable , and it is extremely unlikely that a court would authorize such an agreement.

They should do – and in December 2006, the Supreme Court of Justice further strengthened the requirement for caution where divorce agreements come up for authorization and one party relinquishes his/her property rights. It held that the courts must exercise special caution in these causes in checking that the side relinquishing his/her rights really understood the situation, especially where the relinquishment was broad, and not specified. It even added that it is possible that the burden of proof concerning the finality of the decision to relinquish may shift from the relinquisher to the receiver.

N.B. – Regarding couples married on/after 1.1.74., there is specific legislation on this point –in the 1973 Spouses’ Property Relations’ Act. This requires the court to ask both parties whether they signed the agreement regarding property of their own free will, with a full understanding of its meaning and consequences, where authorization is required.

A woman who is dissatisfied with her financial ‘lot’ under the divorce agreement authorized at the family court can file a plea to cancel it but the chances of success are very, very slim.

It may be possible , however, to take alternative legal action, depending on what part of the agreement is problematic . For example, if the woman has trouble making ends meet and under the agreement she has custody of the children and her ‘ex’ pays an agreed some of child maintenance but this is too low, the minors themselves can file for an increase. Judgments authorizing parental agreement on child maintenance are never final as the children are not parties to them and are not bound by them, and no discussion is held on the issue.

After the agreement has been authorised by a family court or a religious court having jurisdiction over the divorce (e.g. rabbinical court or Moslem religious court),and has been incorporated into a judgment, if one of the parties fails to fulfil his/her obligations under it) then the other side can take legal action to enforce the judgment. Enforcing means ensuring it is put into action, or carried out, as agreed upon in the agreement that has been authorized and incorporated into a judgment.

For example, if a father fails to pay child maintenance according to the conditions agreed upon in the couple’s court authorized divorce agreement, the mother can file for the enforcement of the judgment at the Bailiff’s Office. She can even take action against him to ensure payment (eg by apply for orders freezing his bank account, or preventing him from leaving the country, or to imprison him).

In principle the Rabbinical Court Regulations states that pleas between spouses are to be made at the district rabbinical court in the area where they live or last lived together. However, the regulations also state that an agreement can be made regarding local jurisdiction . Thus a husband and wife who no longer live together and who have moved to a different part/s of the country can decide on a mutually- convenient geographical location . The rabbinical court at which they choose to file their plea reserves the right not to accept its jurisdiction even where the sides have made an agreement, but it must give reasons.