Jerusalem Family Court Rejects Woman's Claim to Cancel Divorce Agreement Citing Fear and Abuse
The Jerusalem Family Court recently dismissed a woman's petition to annul her divorce agreement, which she claimed was signed under duress and fear of her allegedly abusive husband. The couple divorced in early 2019, and their agreement stipulated that each party would retain ownership of their assets, with the woman waiving her dower rights and any financial or property claims against her ex-husband and his family.
About four years later, the woman alleged she endured violence, rape, and psychological abuse during the marriage, forcing her to spend a year in a shelter for battered women. She argued the agreement was signed in bad faith, under fear, deception, and exploitation, citing her post-traumatic condition. She also accused her ex-husband, a lawyer, of using his legal knowledge to oppress her and hiding assets including accounts, cars, and real estate in Switzerland.
Her ex-husband denied these claims, calling them delusional and asserting she signed the agreement voluntarily after extensive negotiations. He maintained the agreement was fair and balanced, and that her alleged mental state at signing was false. Judge Moshe Brown noted the divorce agreement had the force of a court judgment, requiring a high burden of proof to annul it, which the woman failed to meet.
Attorney Sivan Ohana, involved in the case, stated the woman did not provide the necessary expert testimony to prove her mental condition at the time of signing. Although medical records showed she was diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder from ongoing trauma since youth, there was no evidence of active PTSD when the agreement was signed. The court emphasized that emotional distress alone does not justify annulling a court-approved divorce agreement, and the woman's claims of error or deception regarding the document were unproven.
The husband admitted owning Swiss real estate but claimed it represented only a minor inherited share, with no entitlement for his ex-wife. He also confirmed selling a Mercedes, which the woman alleged he concealed, explaining the sale was to repay a loan, making it legitimate. Allegations of hiding a motorcycle were deemed exaggerated, as its value was minimal and did not support claims of concealment. Ultimately, the woman's petition was rejected, and she was ordered to pay 25,000 shekels in legal fees to her ex-husband.
