The Tel Aviv-Yafo Family Court gave legal force to a 2004 prenuptial and property-sharing agreement that was never formally approved by a court, and on that basis ruled that an apartment worth millions of shekels, registered only in the husband’s name, must be split equally between the spouses.
The couple married in 1993, had been together for more than 32 years, and have one adult son. Each entered the marriage with an apartment of their own, the wife in Ramat Gan and the husband in Ramat HaSharon. The family home, where they lived throughout the marriage, was bought by the husband about a decade before the wedding, but the court found that the wife is entitled to half of the rights in it.
The decision centered on a document titled “Marriage Agreement and Property Unification,” drafted in 2003 and signed in January 2004. It said the spouses would share all listed assets, including premarital property, inheritances, and gifts. Under Israeli law, such an agreement normally needs approval from a family court or religious court to be enforceable. The husband argued the agreement was void because it was never approved, and claimed the couple later abandoned it. He also said the wife hid a Ramat HaSharon plot worth 3 million shekels and refused to include it in the deal.
The court rejected his position, saying he acted in bad faith. It relied heavily on the wife’s transfer of about 323,600 shekels into the joint account after the agreement was signed, money from the sale of her premarital apartment and her inheritance from her mother. The judges wrote that her conduct showed she believed the agreement was binding, and that the husband was barred from invoking the lack of formal approval after she had changed her position based on the deal.
The court also found “specific intent to share” in the residence, citing more than three decades of living there, raising their son there, joint banking, renovations, and mutual wills. It noted that the husband worked most of the marriage while the wife focused mainly on childcare and occasional jobs, but said both were aware of that arrangement when they signed. The ruling, in case TLA 5218-01-22, also provides that all assets accumulated until the breakdown of the relationship will be divided equally.
