Rabbinical Court Overturns Divorce Agreement After Couple Found to Be Living Together

A regional rabbinical court in central Israel has overturned a divorce agreement that was approved in 2016, ruling that it was likely intended to shield the husband's assets from creditors and that the couple had effectively abandoned it by continuing to live together.

The couple, married in 2001, had their divorce agreements approved three times previously in 2005, 2008, and 2016. In each instance, they did not finalize the divorce, continued to reside in the same home, share finances, and raise children together. They also traveled abroad as a couple and renovated their shared apartment twice.

The husband's lawyer, Shilat Yifrah, argued that the agreements were fictitious from the start, signed during a period of marital harmony with the sole purpose of preventing creditors from seizing joint property. She stated the debts stemmed from a failed business venture predating the marriage and that the continued cohabitation demonstrated the agreement was merely for show.

The wife contended the agreement was valid, citing the husband's multiple approvals and his acknowledgment of misleading the court. She claimed the debts were solely his responsibility, that she had paid them off, and accused him of waiting seven years to challenge the agreement, constituting undue delay.

However, presiding judge Rabbi Eliyahu Amar, joined by Rabbi Zvi Birnbaum, found support for the husband's claim in the wife's own testimony. She described creditors knocking on their door at night and stated, "Now that we have money, we can separate homes." The judges also noted that shortly after the 2016 agreement, the wife liquidated her study fund to cover the husband's debts, despite the agreement stipulating he was responsible for pre-marital obligations.

Citing a ruling from the Grand Rabbinical Court, the judges determined that a return to marital harmony invalidates a divorce agreement, and the couple's eight years of continued shared life constituted such a situation. They dismissed the delay argument, as the husband's waiting period was seen as necessary to keep assets away from creditors. Lawyer Shilat Yifrah commented that overturning a long-standing, court-approved divorce agreement was a significant legal challenge, emphasizing that the ruling shows that even court-approved agreements are subject to review if they do not reflect reality.