The Family Court in Beersheba rejected a mother’s lawsuit against her only son, in which she argued that the house he lives in, and which she financed, really belongs to her despite being registered in his name. The court also ruled that the son must reimburse her for all mortgage payments and household maintenance expenses from the date their dispute broke out. The case concerned a home bought in 2007 for 900,000 shekels.
According to the evidence, the property was registered in the son’s name, he lived there for years with his partner, and his mother also stayed there at times. The purchase was financed by a 630,000 shekel mortgage, which the mother paid over the years, plus 270,000 shekels in equity, part of which came from the father and part from the mother. In 2023, after the relationship deteriorated, the mother left the home and says her son forced her out. She then demanded that he vacate the property, and when he refused, she sued.
The mother claimed the registration in her son’s name was only formal, a so-called sham contract, arranged for tax reasons because she owned part of another apartment. She said bad legal advice led the developer to register the home in the son’s name, even though the real intention was that she would remain the substantive owner and transfer it to herself later. She also said she paid the mortgage and upkeep, while her son contributed nothing and kept the rent from a residential unit on the property.
The son argued he is the sole owner by virtue of the registration and the facts. He said he initiated the purchase at age 21, while a student, and his father transferred 160,000 shekels to his account for the down payment. He said his mother merely helped with the purchase and guaranteed the mortgage. He also described her payments as natural family support, and even as compensation for a difficult childhood. The court found the mother could not simultaneously claim the registration was fictitious and that it was a gift she could revoke. It held that she failed to prove a trust relationship or a sham transaction, noting that the son’s proof of real financial investment from his father undermined her case. The court did accept her right to repayment for sums she paid from 2023 onward, because at that point the purpose of her support ended.
