Rabbinical Court Rules 82%-18% Property Split in Divorce Case

A couple married in February 2006, who had signed a prenuptial agreement excluding the husband's pre-marital apartment and separate bank accounts from asset division, faced a dispute over a new apartment purchased together in 2009. The husband claimed he financed 82% of the new apartment's approximately $2 million cost with his private funds, funds explicitly excluded from the original prenup. A subsequent agreement, signed by both parties, stipulated that in case of divorce, the apartment's proceeds would be divided according to actual financing sources: 82% for the husband and 18% for the wife.

The wife did not deny signing this second document but later testified in the regional rabbinical court that an oral agreement stipulated she would receive an additional 2% for each year of marriage, effectively granting her close to half after nearly 20 years of marriage. The husband denied any such oral agreement.

The regional rabbinical court in Petah Tikva ruled in favor of the husband, deeming the second agreement a supplement to the original prenup. A subsequent decision by a new panel ordered the wife to divorce and upheld the 82%-18% split, requiring the husband to pay the wife approximately $225,000.

The wife appealed to the Grand Rabbinical Court, arguing the second agreement lacked judicial approval as required by the Spouses' Property Relations Law. However, the Grand Rabbinical Court, citing a Supreme Court ruling, determined that agreements excluding specific assets from division, unlike comprehensive property agreements, do not require judicial approval. The court found this case distinct, as the second agreement merely implemented the original, already-approved prenup rather than adding new excluded assets.

The court dismissed the wife's claim of an oral agreement for additional percentages, stating, "Verbal statements cannot contradict written ones." Her legal team's attempt to argue a forged document claim using a legal principle of "miggo" was also rejected, as the court noted that a genuinely forged document could have been easily proven through signature comparison or forensic analysis.

Ultimately, the appeal was denied, leaving the 82%-18% division of the apartment proceeds intact. No court costs were awarded.