Court Overturns Prenuptial Agreement Due to Husband's Exploitation
A Jerusalem Family Court has unusually overturned a prenuptial agreement that had been previously approved, ruling that it constituted exploitation of the husband. The couple, a Haredi pair with four children, had been married for 28 years before their divorce.
The agreement, signed about a decade before their separation, stipulated that the wife would receive sole ownership of their primary residence and an additional apartment. Furthermore, the husband was to pay alimony of NIS 9,500 per month, despite earning only NIS 6,200. The agreement also stated each party would retain their own bank accounts and pension rights, though the husband did not have a personal account, and family finances were managed through the wife's account.
The husband sought to nullify the agreement, citing contract law provisions against exploitation, arguing that the wife had taken advantage of his vulnerable state and dire circumstances. He claimed he signed the agreement to avoid divorce, believing it would not be enforced. The wife countered that the husband was aware of the terms, was in debt, involved with underworld figures, suffered from addiction, and was often absent, while she managed household expenses.
Judge Orit Ben-Dor Leibl determined that the wife had exploited the husband's extreme fear of divorce and his dependency on her. The court found she had conditioned their continued relationship on his signing the agreement, presenting it as a "drawer agreement" that would not be implemented. The judge ruled the agreement was unfairly one-sided, leaving the husband without housing or asset rights while the wife retained two apartments and accumulated assets.
As a result of the agreement's cancellation, the husband will receive half the rights to the apartments. The wife was also ordered to pay him NIS 70,000 in legal costs. The ruling emphasizes that agreements can be voided due to exploitation if a party's vulnerable state and exploitative circumstances are proven.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.