Israeli Divorce Law: When Courts Deviate From Equal Asset Division
Most couples in Israel assume their assets will be divided equally in a divorce, but legal complexities exist, according to Rabbi Prof. Yitzhak Cohen, academic director of the Ono Academic College's law faculty. He explained in a Channel 7 podcast that Section 8 of the Spouses (Property Relations) Law allows courts to deviate from a 50-50 split in special circumstances, though this power is rarely exercised.
Cohen emphasized that the default is always an equal division, and couples should enter marriage with this understanding. However, Section 8 provides an opening for unique situations where a different distribution might be warranted. The law intentionally leaves these "special circumstances" undefined, allowing for case-by-case evaluation. Despite this, courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are very cautious, consistently reaffirming that equal division is the standard, and deviations occur only in truly extreme cases.
Inheritances, even substantial ones like a recent NIS 150 million windfall, are generally not subject to division. In one case, a husband argued for a larger share due to a significant economic gap created by his wife's inheritance. The court rejected this, classifying the inheritance as an external asset that should not be brought into the asset balancing process, thus preventing it from being considered under Section 8.
A significant development in Israeli jurisprudence is the recognition of earning capacity as a valuable asset. Cohen cited situations where one spouse sacrificed their career to raise children and manage the household, enabling the other to build a high-earning profession. In such cases, courts may order a non-equal division to balance the disparity, as the career itself is viewed as an asset built during the marriage. This concept was influenced by research showing men often improve their financial standing post-divorce while women's declines.
Adultery is explicitly excluded as a factor in asset division, with the Supreme Court ruling that such matters are civil and not moral considerations. However, extreme behavior, such as a husband convicted of attempted murder of his wife, has led to deviations from the equal split. In a rare instance, the court decided against granting property rights to someone who attempted to murder their spouse. Other behaviors like asset concealment or financial manipulation during divorce proceedings can also be considered "special circumstances" justifying a departure from the 50-50 rule.
