Cancer Patient Loses Appeal to Void Deal Forgiving Alimony Debt

A man suffering from lung cancer, who appeared in court in a wheelchair, transferred all his rights to his former marital home to his ex-wife in exchange for her waiving over 326,000 shekels in alimony debt. Two years later, he sought to annul the agreement. The Tel Aviv District Court rejected his appeal, ordering him to pay her 40,000 shekels in expenses, after he had already been ordered to pay 25,000 shekels by the Family Court. The couple, married in 1980 and divorced in 2009, have 12 children and jointly owned a home with two rental units, engaging in years of legal disputes. The man had not paid alimony ordered in 2007, leading his ex-wife to open an enforcement file. By 2020, his debt to her stood at over 326,000 shekels, with additional debts exceeding 717,000 shekels. In 2019, the woman sued to dissolve the co-ownership of the house and collect 205,000 shekels in back alimony.

The day before a hearing in June 2020, the man's court-appointed legal aid attorney requested to withdraw, citing the "one-sided agreement" and her client's chemotherapy treatments. The court did not release her, and she attended the hearing, stating the agreement was made "in a rush" and she was unaware of it. The woman's attorney noted the house was valued at approximately 2 million shekels, with about 800,000 shekels in enforcement debt. The man's son presented a doctor's note stating his father was lucid. The man himself told the judge, "I proposed the arrangement."

The agreement stipulated the man transferred all his rights to the house, and the wife would waive the alimony debt, close the enforcement file, and cancel collection proceedings, with the transfer being "irrevocable." Judge Vered Shavit Finkelstein read the agreement to both parties, and after they confirmed understanding and voluntary signing, it was given the force of a court judgment.

In February 2022, the woman sought a restraining order, and two months later, the man sued to cancel the agreement. He claimed he was in severe physical and mental distress after a 12-day hospitalization, dependent on his children, and that the presented data was incorrect. He presented an appraisal valuing the house at 4 million shekels, not 2 million, and argued a significant portion of the debt was to the National Insurance Institute, which the ex-wife could not forgive. He asserted he signed only because his children promised him housing and livelihood, and that the wife breached the agreement by collecting an additional 40,000 shekels.

His appeal argued it was unreasonable for a person to forfeit all property for nothing, and that he relied on his children, who had excluded him from their weddings. The wife countered that all data was known to both parties after years of litigation. She stated that even if the house was worth 4 million shekels, the man's share had 1.4 million shekels in liens. She calculated that his share would yield about 600,000 shekels after sale, from which he would still owe about 200,000 shekels for back alimony. She claimed he breached the agreement by continuing to collect 7,800 shekels monthly from tenants without transferring it to her, prompting her to resume collection. She emphasized the agreement did not specify the house's value or the debt amount.

The children's testimonies, requested by the father, worked against him. They testified the agreement was entirely his initiative and that they promised medical assistance, not financial support. One son stated he read the agreement to his father, who likely "wanted to end the story." He dismissed the claim of financial promises, saying his father had sufficient funds. The Family Court found the father's version "completely contradicted by his children's testimonies."

Judge Naftali Shilo, writing for the district court, noted the man did not request a medical expert to assess his condition at the time of signing, failing to meet the burden of proof for incapacity. He also pointed out a contradiction in the man's claim: he argued he didn't understand the agreement, yet also stated he sought it due to his children's promises. Shilo suggested that any dispute over promises made by the children should be addressed in a separate lawsuit against them, as these promises were not in the agreement and the wife was unaware of them.

The court found it very difficult to revoke an agreement that had received the force of a court judgment. The man appealed two years after the approval, only after the ex-wife sought a restraining order, and the court presumed he had read and understood the agreement. The court stated that allowing such claims would turn the approval process into a "mockery." The security deposit the man posted for the appeal, along with its earnings, will be transferred to the ex-wife towards the 40,000 shekel payment.