Court Overturns Prenuptial Agreement Due to Husband's Exploitation

A Jerusalem Family Court has exceptionally overturned a prenuptial agreement, originally approved, between a Haredi couple who were married for 28 years and had four children. 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. It also required the husband to pay NIS 9,500 in alimony, despite his monthly income being only NIS 6,200. The agreement further 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 invalidate the agreement, citing exploitation under contract law, arguing that he signed it due to his wife's exploitation of his distress and that the terms were unreasonably unfavorable. He claimed he signed to avoid divorce, believing the agreement would not be enforced. The wife contended the husband was aware of the terms, had incurred debts, dealt with the underworld, suffered from addictions, and was often absent, while she managed household expenses.

Judge Orit Ben-Dor Leibl ruled that the agreement constituted exploitation of the husband. She found the wife had leveraged his fear of divorce, conditioning their continued relationship on his signing the agreement. The judge determined the wife was aware of the husband's vulnerability and his desperation to prevent separation, using this to her advantage by presenting the agreement as a "drawer agreement" that would not be implemented. The court accepted the husband's account that he suffered from extreme dependency on his wife and was anxious about divorce, leading him to agree to all her demands.

The ruling highlighted the agreement's one-sided nature, leaving the husband without housing or asset rights while the wife retained two apartments and all accumulated assets. Consequently, the husband will receive half the rights to the apartments, and the wife was ordered to pay him NIS 70,000 in legal costs. The decision signifies that agreements can be exceptionally canceled due to one party's exploitation, provided the exploited party's vulnerable state and the unreasonable nature of the agreement's terms are proven.