Property Rights

A: Not necessarily. If you succeed in proving, together with your parents, that the funds are theirs, and that they were transferred to you, due to the circumstances you described, the court will not accept your wife’s demand. In a similar case, a husband’s claim was accepted when his mother, an immigrant from Russia, testified that she transferred funds to the joint account of her son and daughter-in-law, and that an apartment was purchased with these funds, and that the apartment was registered in her son’s name in trust.

In a Judgement given on 5.6.25 The Tel Aviv Family Court found that this was not joint property. On the other hand, in the same case, the court ruled that funds that were in the joint account and that the husband claimed were transferred by his uncle would be divided equally between the parties, because the husband did not provide proof that these were indeed the uncle’s funds.

[Family File (Tel Aviv) 20593-11-23]

Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the signature of your divorce agreement. For example, on November 18^th 2024 The Family Court in Tel Aviv (Family Case # 18783-07-21) ordered to strike out a plea filed by an ex-wife, because the divorce agreement between her and her ex-husband, was achieved through a mediation process. The Court there stated that it had no authority to examine her claims, because the divorce agreement was the result of mediation and not of a regular legal process. Meaning, the court has no way to assert whether within the mediation process the sides have agreed to only divide certain parts of their rights in property and not other parts.

In principle, a wife has rights in property acquired during the course of her marriage, even if it is in her husband’s name. This principle applies to a studio apartment bought wholly or partially by her husband during the course of their marriage – even if it is registered in a third party’s name (e.g. the mistress’s) providing she can prove that he invested money in its purchase . Her rights in it will depend on the degree to which her husband contributed towards the purchase of the property – and her success in proving this .

No !

Yes. The Co-operative Organization (Companies) Regulations of 1973 state specifically that a grandchild of an owner can qualify as a “continuing son” on a moshav.

In principle, a wife has rights in property acquired during the course of her marriage, even if it is in her husband’s name. This principle applies to a studio apartment bought wholly or partially by her husband during the course of their marriage – even if it is registered in a third party’s name (e.g. the mistress’s) providing she can prove that he invested money in its purchase . Her rights in it will depend on the degree to which her husband contributed towards the purchase of the property – and her success in proving this .

For example, if the husband alone financed the purchase of the apartment, then the wife should be entitled to half the rights in it. On the other hand if the mistress also contributed financially towards its purchase, then the wife will either be entitled to 50% of her husband’s share in the apartment or 50% of his part of the sale value of the apartment , whichever is higher.

It makes no difference if the husband’s contribution towards the purchase of the apartment came from the bank account in his name only, or from the joint account.

No ! In a case before Tel Aviv Family Court some years ago the ‘custom’ whereby one of the couple’s children could be nominated as the ‘ continuing son’ of a farm on a moshav on the strength of the consent of just one of the spouses was declared invalid. In this case two sisters brought an action to cancel the transfer of rights in the farm to their brother, and to declare all the children as equally entitled to inherit the rights under the Inheritance Law of 1965 . The respondent claimed that the father had signed a declaration in the 1970’s , before he died, nominating him as the ‘continuing son’, and that this undertaking bound the mother , too, as was the custom at the time. Originally the couple had received joint permission to use and occupy the farm from the Jewish agency, even though just the father had signed the papers. The court rejected these arguments, distinguishing between receiving rights on the strength of one spouse’s signature, and losing them the same way. The signature of one spouse was sufficient to receive property rights for both of them from an authority, but insufficient for transferring the rights of the spouse who did not sign, in this situation , it held. At the time the assumption of marital partnership applied to the couple’s property relations and the mother could not give up these rights, unless her consent was proved, which it was not, given the particular circumstances of the case.

Yes. Ownership of the farm can be passed on by way of a will and is a separate issue from membership of the Moshav ( an agricultuaral organization ). If someone inherits a farm in a will but is not accepted as a member of the Moshav he can live there without being a member.

Yes. The Co-operative Organization (Companies) Regulations of 1973 state specifically that a grandchild of an owner can qualify as a “continuing son” on a moshav.

Yes. The Co-operative Organization (Companies) Regulations of 1973 state specifically that an adopted child can qualify as a “continuing son” on a moshav.