Mother Wins Lawsuit Against Son and Ex-Daughter-in-Law for NIS 380,000
Translated & summarized from Kikar HaShabbat by baba
An Israeli mother successfully sued her son and his ex-wife for NIS 380,000, with a court ruling that funds transferred during the marriage were loans due upon their separation. The ex-daughter-in-law's defense that the money was a gift or repaid was rejected by the judge.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Mother wins NIS 380,000 lawsuit against son and ex-daughter-in-law.
- Court ruled funds transferred during marriage were loans, not gifts.
- Repayment was due upon the couple's separation.
- Ex-daughter-in-law's defense was unconvincing to the court.
- Former couple ordered to repay the full amount jointly and severally.
A family court has ordered a former couple to repay NIS 380,000 to the son's mother, who sued them after their separation. The judge ruled that two significant sums of money transferred by the mother to the couple during their marriage were loans, not gifts, and that their repayment was due upon the couple's split.
The mother, represented by attorney Gassan Hamam, claimed she provided two loans: NIS 200,000 to help with a down payment for an apartment, and another NIS 180,000 for various expenses including bank loans and general financial assistance. She stated that both loans were agreed to be repaid in the event of separation or divorce.
While the son admitted his mother's claims, the ex-daughter-in-law presented a different version. She argued that the NIS 200,000 was repaid in cash through monthly installments, and the NIS 180,000 was a gift. However, her account was not convincing to the court, particularly her inability to provide the mother's address despite claiming to have visited her home regularly to make payments.
The court sided with the mother, ruling the funds were indeed loans. The former couple was ordered jointly and severally to pay the full NIS 380,000. Additionally, the ex-daughter-in-law was ordered to pay NIS 2,500 in expenses and approximately NIS 35,000 in attorney fees to her former mother-in-law.
Attorneys for both sides commented on the ruling. The ex-daughter-in-law's lawyer noted that while his client was ordered to repay half the sum, the evidence regarding a warning note on the property and his client's consent raised questions, leading to a revised repayment amount. The mother's lawyer emphasized the importance of formal agreements, even within families, and highlighted how documented evidence, including handwritten notes, helped prove the nature of the transactions as loans.
