Property Rights

A: Yes! In a decision given on 24.12.24, on a request for a leave of appeal on this issue, filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, (leave of appeal # 16554-09-24) The court’s decision to deny the family, permission to submit a recording of a conversation between a minor granddaughter (13 years old at the time) and her grandmother, who requested that the family be evicted from their apartment, was rejected. It was determined that even though it was a conversation between a minor (name), who was allegedly involved in a conflict (through her parents), the recording could be used for the purposes of the proceedings. The court of appeal ruled that since there was no intention to have the minor testify, there was no legal impediment to submitting the recording.

A: On 30.7.24, the Family Court in Tel Aviv judged a similar claim (Family File #23607-03-21). There, the parents gave their apartment as a gift to their son, expecting him to take care of them, but the son passed away, as did the father of the son. The mother was heartbroken, and announced that she was withdrawing from the agreement, but the attorney who handled the matter ignored her, and registered the apartment in the land registry in the name of the granddaughter (the son’s daughter). After the grandmother was able to prove in court that she had sent a notice to the lawyer regarding the cancellation of the gift, before registering the apartment in the land registry in the name of the deceased son, it was determined that the transaction should be seen as an “obligation to give a gift” that can be withdrawn from in accordance with Section 5 of the Gift Law 1968, due to “a significant deterioration in the financial situation of the giver.” The court ruled that the grandmother was left to bear alone, the costs of her medical treatment, and that she and her husband had originally intended to give the apartment to their son, under the assumption that he would take care of all their needs. Both the son’s untimely death and his daughter’s refusal to support her grandmother completely changed the situation, in a way that justifies the cancellation of the registration in the land registry.

A: Yes! But only if you succeed to prove in court that indeed there was a disgraceful behavior on the part of the son. This was determined in a judgement from 23.6.2024 given at the Family Court in Petah Tikva, (Family File 56424-03-18), where a mother’s claim to cancel a gift to her son, was rejected. In the above case, gift affidavits were signed by the parties, and a warning note was even registered in favor of the son at the Land Registry, but the rights to the apartment had not yet been registered in the son’s name. The mother argued in support of her claim to cancel the gift that the son was treating her in a disgraceful manner, and that the apartment was gifted to him for tax reasons. The court, there, found that there was a contradiction in her claims, and dismissed the claim. The Court found that the mother was unable to prove the existence of the conditions justifying her withdrawal from her written commitment to give the gift, and that it was a gift given with full discretion and full intent.

Yes! The District Court on December 24^th 2024, in leave of appeal (Case # 16554-09-24), ruled in a similar case, to allow the use of a recording between a grandmother and her minor grandchild, and overturned a previous decision by The family Court on this question. The District Court found that since the child’s testimony and affidavit at The Family Court were not required, then her welfare has been preserved (not to be involved in the parties’ conflict). Consequently, the District Court ruled that filing the recording and transcript of the conversation between the grandmother and the child, at The Family Court, would not involve the minor child in the conflict, and therefore allowed it.

Yes! If you can prove that you have notified the lawyer in writing of the cancelation before he registered the apartment, and that you have grounds to change your wishes, then it is possible under section 5 of the Gift Act of 1968 as ruled by the Family Court in Tel Aviv on July 30^th 2024 (case # 23607-03-21).

Yes, but your wife, the spouse living abroadwill have to sign a notary’s power of attorney authorised at an Israeli Consulate abroad, which appoints you, the other spouse, to sell her rights in the car and transfer ownership in Israel . The original power of attorney will need to be sent to Israel in order for the change in ownership of the car to be effected.

Once money is transferred from an individual account owned by one spouse into a joint account held by the husband and wife it becomes mutual property -even its origin was property owned by only one party prior to the marriage. Both parties have equal rights to what is in the joint account.

The party who transferred the money may actually withdraw a sum equivalent to what he/she deposited from a personal account into a joint account, but this could be risky. A court could regard the money in the joint account as common property, and what was originally deposited in it as a present from the party depositing it from the moment it entered the account.

It is worth nothing – as long as a party keeps money owned by him/her prior to the marriage in a separate account in his/her sole name it remains his/her personal property, and is not joint property acquired by mutual effort during the time the parties lived together as a married couple.

The whole issue of presents given during marriage, especially jewellery and precious items, is far from being clear cut. What determines whether presents given by one party to the other during the marriage are gifts is the intention of the parties. This is to be learnt from their behaviour and from the particular circumstances. Property regarded as marital property is to be balanced out between the parties, according to the 1973 Spouses’ Property Relations Law, whereas gifts given by one to the other remain personal property, are not to be balanced out between them.

Several possibilities exist regarding jewellery and precious items – these could have been intended to be given as a gift, as an investment or even part of business stock. What appears to be the case here is that the gems made up into items of jewelry according to the wife’s instructions would appear to be intended as gifts, in which case her husband would have no right to claim they were joint property. If they were made up for particular occasions like birthdays or wedding anniversaries, this would reinforce the argument that they were intended to be personal presents. Where someone buys a large quantity of gems or gold, or jewelry which is valuable due to its type or quantity , and succeeds in persuading the court that he did so for investment or business purposes, then the court can declare it to be joint property, to be shared between the parties. It does not matter if the other party is allowed to wear it or use it as the intention is what counts.

The answer is not clear cut. What determines whether presents given by one spouse to another during the course of their marriage count as marital property to be balanced out between them when they divorce, according to the 1973 Spouses’ Property Relations Law, or not , is the parties’ intention . This is to be learnt from their behaviour and from the particular circumstances.

Several possibilities exist regarding jewellery, even though at first sight it would seem an item intended for personal use, and therefore, unlikely to be regarded as marital property. For example, ‘collectors’ items’ such as Kruggerand coins made into jewellery could be bought as an investment in which case they could be argued as being joint property. However, if such an item is given to mark an occasion such as a birthday or anniversary it is more likely to be regarded as something belonging exclusively to the receiver, rather than being marital property.

Not necessarily as it depends upon when the gift was given in relation to when someone is declared bankrupt.

Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance, which applies to individuals, gifts made in the two years immediately preceding a declaration of bankruptcy are automatically cancelled.

Gifts given between 2-10 years prior to the declaration of bankruptcy may still be valid if the recipient manages to prove two cumulative conditions – (1) that the giver was financially solvent (without the gift) when he gave it and (2) that after the gift was made rights in the property were transferred to the recipient.

If more than 10 years have passed since the donor was declared bankrupt then the gift holds.