Cohabitation

No. To qualify as cohabitees or common-law spouses a couple must fulfil certain criteria e.g. they must usually  live together under one household as man and wife and run it together . It is not enough to sleep at each others apartment in rotation. However, in the  Shukran Supreme Case it was stressed that the test should not be a rigid, objective one and the couple concerned were given the status of cohabitees even though they lived separately but sometimes lived in each other’s apartment. Particular laws may demand that the parties actually live together on a proper basis to qualify as cohabitees.

Only if certain conditions established by the courts in leading cases exist. These include: living together, running a household together , intimate relations and some emotional element. A woman who meets a married man regularly but does not live with him and does not share a home with him is likely to be regarded as his mistress, but not his cohabitee or common-law wife, even if they have intimate relations and some emotional attachment.

No ! Absence of Israeli citizenship does not prevent someone claiming rights of a cohabitee in Israel.

Not complete proof. The fact that two people have drawn up an agreement declaring themselves to be cohabitees only provides evidence of their potential status i.e. is partial proof . In practice they could be living apart. Thus the agreement would form part of the evidence necessary to prove their status. They would still have to fulfil the other conditions , the main ones being habitation under the same roof and managing a common household.

No, although if they do live together permanently in the same home, have intimate relations and share some of their finances, proving their status will be a lot simpler.

Yes, it is possible , depending on the particular circumstances.

In principle, yes, if the creditors sue the common-law spouse in court, and can prove that he/she was cohabiting with someone, then the fellow-cohabitee is liable for debts arising during the period of their cohabitation. The joint responsibility is not automatic; cohabitee status must be proved in court.

Once she  has proved her status and an intention to share property ,their rights are similar – but she must overcome a huge hurdle first. A married woman’s husband cannot deny his wife’s claim to partnership regarding marital property because she does not have to prove her status. In contrast, the boyfriend of a cohabitee can deny the substance of their relationship and the onus is on her to prove she has the status of a common-law wife. Even when she proves that, she must prove either a general intention to share property during the period of cohabitation, or an intention to share a specific property.

If she does manage to prove all this, then as a common-law wife she is entitled to half of the property acquired during the period of  cohabitation. The rights of a cohabiting woman who has not entered into a property relations agreement – but who has proved her status as a common-law wife and the required intention to share property- are similar to those of a woman who married before 1974.

No, although if they do live together permanently in the same home, have intimate relations and share some of their finances, proving their status will be a lot simpler. Referring to the Supreme Court case of Alon v Mendelson where it was emphasized that there is not even a standard ‘recipe’ for ‘family life’ or ‘shared household’ among married couples.

Yes, it is possible , depending on the particular circumstances. A few years ago the Kfar Saba family court granted an exit order against a former cohabitee of a woman who had filed him for a division of property and maintenance for their daughter. The couple had lived together for several years. The woman had presented credible evidence to the court showing that the respondent had heavy debts – and was planning to avoid them by leaving the country. The respondent had no property in Israel and had lived abroad for many years. Granting the order the court held that the woman had a good chance of getting a judgment in her favour and that the respondent’s intended departure from Israel would make it hard for the woman to enforce this. The damage she may incur by his departure would be greater than any damage he was likely to suffer because of the order, it held.