Court Rules Ex-Wife Cannot Claim Old Home Value After Delay
Translated & summarized from Kikar HaShabbat by baba
The Tel Aviv District Court ruled against a former wife's attempt to claim her marital home based on an outdated 2020 valuation, despite its value increasing by over NIS 1.11 million. The court found her demand to be in bad faith, as she had delayed property division proceedings. The ruling also upheld the wife's obligation to pay usage fees for the home and ordered her to pay NIS 35,000 in legal costs to her ex-husband.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Court rejected ex-wife's claim to home based on outdated 2020 valuation, citing bad faith.
- Home's value increased by over NIS 1.11 million between 2020 and 2026 appraisals.
- Ex-wife delayed property division proceedings for years, then sought to claim home at old price.
- Court upheld wife's obligation to pay usage fees for living in the shared home since 2019.
- Ex-wife ordered to pay ex-husband NIS 35,000 in legal costs.
The Tel Aviv District Court has rejected a former wife's appeal to claim her former marital home based on a 2020 valuation, despite a significant increase in its value since then. The court ruled that the woman could not delay the division of shared property for years and then demand the asset be transferred to her at its outdated price. The couple, married in 1995 with three children, separated in June 2018, with the husband leaving the family home and the wife remaining with the children.
Disputes arose over the division of assets, including the home and a now-closed company. A key issue was the home's valuation: an appraisal from January 2020 placed its value at NIS 3.16 million, while a later appraisal in February 2026 estimated it at NIS 4.27 million, a difference of over NIS 1.11 million.
The wife sought to acquire the entire home based on the earlier, lower valuation, while leaving the husband's shares in the company with him and paying a settlement of approximately NIS 126,000. She argued the husband's delays in handling company matters should not penalize her with rising property prices during the dispute.
However, the court, led by Judge Einat Ravid, sided with the husband. The court noted that the husband had filed for the division of the home in March 2019, but the wife had requested a delay until all property was settled. "One cannot hold the stick by both ends," stated Judge Ravid, describing the wife's demand to freeze the value as "manifest bad faith." The court emphasized that the significant increase in the home's value could not be ignored, regardless of disputes over the company's valuation.
Additionally, the court upheld a previous ruling requiring the wife to pay usage fees for living in the shared home since March 2019, when the husband filed his claim. The court found that the wife benefited from exclusive use of the property while the husband had to find alternative housing and continued to pay the mortgage. One minor point was conceded to the wife: funds in an account held by the husband's mother, totaling approximately NIS 7,300 at the time of separation, were deemed part of the marital assets. The wife was ordered to pay the ex-husband NIS 35,000 in legal costs.