Wife Ordered to Pay Husband After Failed Claim of Hidden Income
A financial dispute spanning four and a half years in the Petah Tikva Family Court concluded with a ruling against the wife's claims. The court ordered her to pay the husband NIS 13,652 based on an expert's opinion, plus NIS 35,000 in legal costs and NIS 5,000 to the state. The couple married in 2005 and separated in May 2021. He runs an independent business, and she works as a clinical therapist.
In December 2022, an accounting firm was appointed as a court expert to assess the value of their businesses, social rights, and allegations of asset concealment. The wife had argued for an unequal division of assets, citing a significant income disparity. She claimed the husband deposited NIS 725,521 into their joint account in 2019, compared to her NIS 31,900, and that he was hiding ownership of a bus company earning at least NIS 1.4 million annually, while also benefiting from his parents' family business reputation.
The husband countered that the wife stopped depositing funds into the joint account after their separation and incurred significant debt with the bank. The expert found no evidence of asset concealment in the three years prior to the separation, stating that proving such claims definitively is extremely difficult. The expert also noted the business had negative cash flow and that even proven higher earnings wouldn't necessarily increase the business's valuation.
The court found the expert's report to be thorough and professional, stating there was no substantial evidence to refute it. Regarding the use of his parents' business name, the court ruled that no commingling of income or use of the same business licenses was proven, and the wife did not call the parents to testify. The court did find the wife's denial of income concealment credible, and the expert found no issues with her conduct.
The additional costs imposed on the wife were attributed to her conduct during the summation phase, including submitting documents exceeding page limits and filing them late, leading the court to base its final ruling solely on the husband's submissions.
