Cancer Patient Loses Appeal to Void Property Deal with Ex-Wife

The Tel Aviv District Court recently rejected an appeal filed by a cancer patient seeking to nullify a financial agreement through which he transferred his rights to their shared home to his ex-wife in exchange for her waiving alimony debt. The judges, Einat Ravid, Naftali Shilo, and Yechiel Eliyahu, ruled that the husband initiated the agreement and signed it willingly, and that alleged promises from his children do not constitute grounds for its cancellation. The couple married in 1980 and divorced in 2009, engaging in prolonged legal battles, partly due to the father's accumulated alimony debt. In June 2020, while undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer, the couple signed the agreement. The husband would transfer his share of the house to his ex-wife, who in turn would forfeit the alimony debt and close the enforcement case. The husband's lawyer initially opposed the deal, calling it one-sided and rushed, but he insisted on signing, stating, "I proposed the arrangement." After a medical confirmation of his mental capacity and declarations of understanding and voluntary consent, the court approved the agreement.

Approximately two years later, the husband petitioned to cancel it, claiming his severe physical and mental state impaired his understanding. He asserted he only agreed to forfeit his rights because his children promised him housing and financial support for life, a promise they allegedly broke. His ex-wife countered that he initiated the agreement knowingly, and their children denied making any such promises. She emphasized that even if such promises were made, they do not justify voiding the agreement with her.

Last July, the Family Court dismissed the husband's claim and granted his ex-wife a permanent injunction preventing him from entering the house, finding no evidence of duress, mistake, or misrepresentation, and confirming his capacity. The husband was ordered to pay NIS 25,000 in legal costs. His subsequent appeal, filed in November 2025, was also dismissed. Judge Shilo highlighted that the husband initiated the agreement, and the children's alleged promises were not included in it, nor was the ex-wife aware of them. The court stated that if the husband believes his children broke a commitment, he can pursue legal action against them, but this is not grounds to cancel the agreement with his ex-wife. The ruling also noted the lack of medical evidence for his alleged mental incapacity and the significant delay in filing the cancellation request, which only followed the ex-wife's injunction suit. The agreement remains in effect, and the husband was ordered to pay an additional NIS 40,000 in legal costs.