Property Rights

According to a recent controversial decision of Kfar Saba Magistrates’ Court, the local District Court would have jurisdiction, because the grounds for the plea are based on the law relating to companies. It held that the family court would not have jurisdiction as a limited company did not fit in with the definition of “a person” or “family member” under the Family Courts’ Act of 1995.

Her signature as a guarantor ! A wife’s knowledge and consent is required for her to be mutually responsible for a debt arising out of her husband acting as a personal guarantor for loans taken out for his business. This point was emphasised in a case before the Tel Aviv Family Court in December 2002 where the couple had been married for over 30 years and the husband asked the court to hold his wife responsible for debts arising from a series of loans he had taken out to help the company in which he had been given shares … but was unsuccessful.

Much depends on the particular wording of the property relations agreement between the couple. There may have been some reference to the sides possible future claims against one another. In particular there may be reference to the possibility of the wife’s future relations with the company and rights or claims against it which would be relevant. Failing that there may be reference to some general principles in the Property Relations Act of 1973 which are applicable. No clear answer can be given without all the circumstances being known. It could be argued conversely – that the agreement was executed and a totally new situation exists whereby the wife is free to claim she has rights in the business growth since the execution of the agreement.

Yes. The addition of the company as a defendant is justified in this situation and even likely to make proceedings more efficient.

In general a wife will have rights in her husband’s business property acquired during the marriage, but not before. However, in exceptional circumstances , in long-established, harmonious marriages the wife may sometimes succeed in proving that the marital partnership in their property extends to business property owned by her husband prior to marriage. So the Supreme Court held in the nineties in a case involving a couple who had been happily married for nearly 40 years, and where the wife had contributed to the marital partnership by raising a family and looking after the home, and occasionally working outside it.

If the savings fund is managed under the child’s name or the child is listed as a beneficiary on it, then the money belongs to him and is his property. If, however, the money is invested in a savings account in the parents’ name, or in one of their names, then it is joint property that can be divided up upon divorce.

According to a controversial decision of Kfar Saba Magistrates’ Court, the local District Court would have jurisdiction, because the grounds for the plea are based on the law relating to companies. It held that the family court would not have jurisdiction as a limited company did not fit in with the definition of “a person” or “family member” under the Family Courts’ Act of 1995.

However, this ruling – which is not binding – contradicts with Supreme Court precedent which has held that in such a situation the family court would have jurisdiction as there is a connection between the civil plea and the family dispute.

Her signature as a guarantor ! A wife’s knowledge and consent is required for her to be mutually responsible for a debt arising out of her husband acting as a personal guarantor for loans taken out for his business. This point was emphasised in a case before the Tel Aviv Family Court a few years ago, where the couple had been married for over 30 years and the husband asked the court to hold his wife responsible for debts arising from a series of loans he had taken out to help the company in which he had been given shares … but was unsuccessful.

Much depends on the particular wording of the property relations agreement between the couple. There may have been some reference to the sides possible future claims against one another. In particular there may be reference to the possibility of the wife’s future relations with the company and rights or claims against it which would be relevant. Failing that there may be reference to some general principles in the Property Relations Act of 1973 which are applicable. No clear answer can be given without all the circumstances being known. It could be argued conversely – that the agreement was executed and a totally new situation exists whereby the wife is free to claim she has rights in the business growth since the execution of the agreement.

Yes. The addition of the company as a defendant is justified in this situation and even likely to make proceedings more efficient.