Court Awards Survivor Pension to Woman in De Facto Union

A woman who lived in an adjacent apartment to her partner for years has been awarded survivor's pension benefits, in a ruling that emphasizes a flexible interpretation of "shared living" requirements for common-law couples.

The couple, who knew each other as neighbors since 1997, began a romantic relationship in 2005 after the man was widowed. In 2007, they decided to formalize their relationship and live as husband and wife, with the woman referring to him as "my husband." Their relationship continued until the man's death in February 2024.

When the woman applied for survivor's pension benefits from the "Mivtachim" pension fund, she was denied. The fund argued she did not meet the requirement of living together under one roof for at least two consecutive years, as they were registered in separate apartments. Evidence presented by the fund included a rental agreement for a room in the man's apartment, a detailed expense agreement from 2015, and a hospital release letter stating he lived with his daughter. The man's daughters also testified that the couple did not actually live together, with their belongings remaining in their respective apartments.

Despite this, the court ruled in favor of the woman. Judges cited a legal precedent that interprets the "shared living" requirement flexibly, especially for older couples who entered relationships after divorce or widowhood. The court determined that the crucial factors are an intimate relationship demonstrating affection and commitment, alongside a shared household as a natural consequence of family life. The close proximity of their apartments, allowing passage between them in seconds, made the separate registrations less significant.

The court also noted that the couple's arguments, even over minor issues like running out of milk, indicated a shared life rather than a neighborly dispute. The lack of full financial integration did not disqualify them, as the pension fund's regulations do not mandate that common-law couples mirror traditional married couples. The court stated its role was not to judge the quality of the relationship but to determine if a common-law union existed, with its ups and downs. Consequently, the woman was deemed eligible for the survivor's pension, with each party bearing their own legal costs.