Property Rights

A: No! An unsigned financial agreement does not constitute evidence of a party’s intention, even if he/she initiated the drafting of the agreement (which was not signed). In a judgement given on 25.12.24 (A.M. 32785-01-24) in the Tel Aviv-Yafo District Court, the court rejected an appeal by a woman who claimed that she and her former partner should be recognized as common law partners. The court ruled that, even if her ex-partner agreed to the fact in a draft (unsigned) agreement to maintain a joint property regime during their relationship, it does not prove that this was his intention. The reason for this is that since the woman refused to sign the agreement, it cannot be determined that the parties acted according to the principles of the agreement. The court also referred to the fact, their three-year relationship, the parties did not acquire any significant joint property except for the chattels of the apartment and did not even open a joint bank account for household expenses. The fact that the woman (the appellant) insisted on receiving all the chattels that she claimed she had purchased with her own money, at the time of their separation shows that she believed that even the contents of the apartment were separate property.

A: For a couple to be recognized as common-law partners, two conditions must be met: maintaining a family life and managing a common home. A Judgement issued on December 24, 2024, in the Haifa District Court of Appeal (Case No. 15431-07-23), determined that since the parties continued to live together, and did not change anything despite the “betrayals” that their relationship experienced, therefore, the condition of “family life” is clearly and unequivocally met. Meaning they were recognized as common-law partners.

A: Probably not. In a Judgement issued on February 28, 2024, the Family Court in Petah Tikva rejected a plea by a woman who claimed half of the rights to an apartment she purchased with her ex-fiancé, before their separation, (as part of the Ministry of Housing’s “Target Price” project), which was registered with the mortgage company in the names of both parties, when in reality, she financed only one-tenth of its value. The Family court ruled that the “cry of fairness” demands that the apartment not be divided equally, given the woman’s behavior, her infidelity towards her then partner, and the financing of 90% of the purchase by him. The man was also given the first right to purchase the woman’s share of the apartment.

[Family Case (Petah Tikva) 24721-06-21,45777-11-21]

The ‘assumption of partnership’ in property does not apply to the original property owned by one of the parties before they cohabited . However, it does apply to the improvement and extension to the property and to the rent gained from it. You will ,however, have to prove your status and your financial contribution to the building of the studio.