Israeli Court Rules Man Not Obligated to Share Majority of Accident Payout with Ex-Partner
Translated & summarized from Cursorinfo by baba
An Israeli man who received over 4 million shekels in insurance compensation after a severe accident will not have to share most of the money with his ex-partner of 17 years. A Haifa family court ruled that only the initial 1 million shekel payout, received while they lived together, was intended for sharing. The larger 3.69 million shekel payment, received after their separation, was deemed solely the man's. The court also ordered an accounting for 90,000 shekels the woman took upon leaving their home.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- An Israeli man is not required to share the majority of his 4 million shekel accident insurance payout with his ex-partner.
- A Haifa family court ruled the larger 3.69 million shekel payment, received after separation, was solely the man's.
- The court did allow for the initial 1 million shekel payout, received while they lived together, to be shared.
- The couple lived together for 17 years and raised three children before separating.
- A sum of 90,000 shekels taken by the woman upon leaving the home will be accounted for in a property settlement.
A family court in Haifa has ruled that a man who received over 4 million shekels in insurance payouts after a severe car accident is not obligated to share the majority of the funds with his former partner of 17 years. The couple, who raised three children together, separated after the man was injured in a high-tech industry accident about a decade ago, rendering him unable to return to his previous work. He has been living on insurance payouts since then.
The man received two separate insurance payments: 1 million shekels paid while the couple was still living together, and 3.69 million shekels paid after their separation. The woman claimed she was entitled to half of all insurance payouts, arguing that expenses related to the accident were paid from their joint account and that she was the sole financial provider for the family after the crash.
The court determined that the initial 1 million shekel payment was intended to be shared, as it was received while the couple was still living together and the man had expressed an intention to share it. However, the court ruled that the larger 3.69 million shekel payment, received after the couple's separation, was not subject to division. The judge reasoned that the man did not intend to share these future, uncertain funds and that awarding a portion of this second payment would constitute double compensation, as the woman had already benefited from the division of the first payment.
The judge also considered the man's personal circumstances, noting his ongoing psychological struggles and inability to return to the workforce nine years after the accident. The court ordered that a sum of 90,000 shekels, which the woman transferred to her account after leaving the home, be accounted for in a final property settlement between the parties.
