Property Rights

Yes, if the banks take legal action to recover the debt and the court gives a judgment ordering them to pay up, and they do not , then creditors are entitled to apply to the Chief Bailiff at the Execution Office for a freezing order on the home to guarantee the debt. If the couple are still unable to pay 30 days after the order is granted , then the process of selling the property to cover the debt can start. The law contains provisions to protect debtors families from becoming homeless; the Chief Bailiff will not act to evict the family from the home unless he is satisfied that they will have “reasonable accommodation” or an “alternative arrangement awaiting them. In practice, this means that they may be forced to sell to cover the debt, and have to buy a smaller property with what money is left over, or even rent one.

Yes. When the court decides on the division of property rights in the family home, it can decide on an unequal division to take into account the minors’ accommodation needs, so that the parent who gets custody will get a larger share.

Whether delay in filing for a declaratory judgment about one’s rights in the former marital home amounts to a relinquishment of those rights will depend on the circumstances of the case in question, and the court has discretion over the matter. The Supreme Court has held that delay in itself does not amount to an obstacle preventing a former spouse from filing for a declaratory judgment regarding property rights. In the late 1980’s it held that it was “unjust” to say that a family member who took no interest in his formal rights had given them up if he only became interested in them because they became “relevant” due to a change in circumstances.

The future husband can protect his rights in the apartment by drawing up a property relationship agreement with his future wife in which it is stated that each party will have rights proportionate to their relative investment in it, upon divorce.

No ! Assuming the couple got married on or after 1.1.74, then, according to the relevant legislation, the 1973 Spouses’ Property Relations’ Act, both spouses have an equal right to property acquired during the course of their marriage, unless it falls into one of the exceptions e.g. gift or inheritance , or they made a written agreement, authorized in court, which excluded a certain asset from the common pool of property. Now, although the court does have discretion to digress from this 50:50 formula where it feels it would be just to do so in exceptional circumstances, it cannot do so where the real estate is registered in joint names, as this indicates the parties’ agreed intention for that property to be jointly owned, and the assumption is in equal shares.

Yes, most probably. Providing that the transfer of rights has not been effected at the Israel Lands Registry, then it remains an undertaking to make a gift, and, according to the 1968 Gift Act, is reversible in principle, although exceptions exist. If, for example, the donor has given up his right to retract the undertaking or the potential recipient can prove that his/her situation has worsened as a result of relying on the promise, then the undertaking cannot be reversed.

The principle is that because the property was owned before one party before marriage, it remains that party’s  individual property. If, however, the couple cohabited and it was acquired during this period then the other party can have rights to it if it is proved that they fit the definition of cohabitees and there was a general or specific intention of partnership between them.

In your  situation as described it does not appear that you were cohabitees when the property was purchased and, therefore you do not have rights in it. However, as the mortgage is still being paid during your marriage – even though from your wife’s account only – you  will be entitled to a sum equivalent to half of the mortgage repayments made during your  married life together.

In principle, yes ! If the family home was acquired during the couple’s marriage then it belongs to them in equal parts even if it is registered in one of their names. Accordingly, if for example, a husband transfers rights in the home to the couple’s children behind his wife’s back, then she can bring legal action to cancel the transfer of ownership.

If the court is satisfied that a person is forced to leave his apartment and that he did not leave of his own free will, then he will be entitled to money for its use from the day he left. If the court is not satisfied that he was forced to leave, he will only be entitled to money for its use if the other owners leased all the apartment or the part the person vacated, for the duration of the let. He will not be entitled to any money if he left voluntarily and the property is not leased out but remains empty.

In theory, no, as religious courts must apply civil law regarding property and cannot ignore legislation regarding women’s equal rights. An order to vacate a property in which a person has rights/potential rights cannot be made until the court has ruled on these and the division of the property, and the property is actually to be divided. A husband has no favoured status regarding a couple’s property relations because of the Women’s Equal Right’ Act of 1951, The 1969 Land Law ( which sees both sexes as equal partners regarding property) and the Bavli petition ruling in the 90’s. However, in practice, this has happened.