Court Orders Businessman to Buy New Apartment for Ex-Wife, Not Use Existing Property

The Tel Aviv District Court has ruled in a financial agreement dispute between a divorcing couple who were married for nine years and have three children. According to the 2014 agreement, each spouse retained full ownership of assets registered in their name. The husband, a businessman, had agreed to provide his wife with an apartment in the Sharon region upon their separation. The agreement stipulated that if they had three or more children, he would purchase a new apartment worth $1.15 million, to be registered half in the children's names and half in the wife's name, granting her lifetime residency rights and the right to rent it out.

The couple separated in 2023. The husband proposed transferring his existing apartment in the Sharon region, valued above $1.15 million, to his wife as fulfillment of his obligation. However, the wife argued he was obligated to purchase a new apartment and demanded it be located in Tel Aviv. Initially, the Family Court allowed the husband to transfer his existing apartment, but the wife appealed.

The District Court partially accepted the appeal, ruling that the husband must purchase a new apartment and cannot use his existing one. The judges determined that the agreement's wording, "undertakes to purchase," clearly indicated a future acquisition, not the transfer of a pre-existing property. They noted that the existing apartment, which was rented to a third party, was designated as collateral, not a future residence. Forcing the wife and children to move to the Sharon apartment would cause irreparable harm due to the need for stability, and selling it to buy a Tel Aviv apartment would incur significant capital gains taxes.

The court clarified that the financial agreement's language was unambiguous: the husband was obligated to buy a new apartment, not give an existing one. The wife's demand for the new apartment to be specifically in Tel Aviv was rejected, as the agreement did not specify a location, allowing her the freedom to choose where to live. The judges also ruled that the purchase amount, pegged to the dollar at the time of separation in 2023 (3.66 shekels to the dollar), amounted to 4.2 million shekels. The husband was ordered to add Israeli shekel interest from April 2023 until the actual purchase, totaling approximately 900,000 shekels. The total amount now stands at about 5.15 million shekels.

Separately, the husband's claim for reduced alimony due to alleged financial hardship was dismissed. Evidence showed he maintained a lavish lifestyle, including expensive rent, a luxury car, international vacations, and substantial support for extended family, while his company reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in net profit. The wife's financial situation had not significantly changed, as she owns two apartments. The court also rejected the wife's claim to cancel the reduction in child support contributions.