A couple had a joint household together for 19 years. They never married but Recognized as publicly known.
They lived in an apartment that was registered in the woman’s name, but after so many years of living together, the man now claimed that it should be divided equally by virtue of the rule of joint ownership between spouses.
The man also petitioned the court to order Disassembly Sharing in the same apartment, and even to appoint a receiver for the purpose of selling the property and dividing the proceeds from its sale equally.
For a personal conversation with a lawyer, call: 077-997-4020
The Family Court is required to decide two questions, one of which implicates the other.
First, are the couple known to the public? Assuming they are known to the public, was there an intention between the couple to share the apartment in which they lived for the purpose of dividing the property equally?
What did he decide? Home Family Law In the hearing of the TAMSH (Tel Aviv) proceeding 21311-02-10 A. R. N. B. And how did he rule on the above questions?
The defendant’s wife’s claim
The defendant strongly argued that the plaintiff is abusing legal proceedings, saying that the plaintiff is trying to make improper use of the court and the public’s known procedures in order to remove the defendant from her home and throw her out onto the street as an empty vessel, after he had used her for years, living at her expense, until he found another woman in her place.
The apartment was purchased by her when she was his partner, but the man refused to sign the contract for fear of commitment.
Therefore, she was already the signatory in the purchase contract from 1992 and she is actually the one who purchased the property. Throughout their entire life together The mortgage Payed by the woman only.
It should be noted that There was a financial agreement between the couple., but it was not approved by a family court, which weakens its validity.
Halacha regarding the property of public figures
Common-law is a legal term. It refers to spouses who live together and maintain a common household without marriage. To determine whether a couple is common-law, one must examine shared residence, joint accounts, cohabitation, etc.
Sharing method
When a spouse is known to the public, the legal rule is (assuming that no financial agreement was signed between them) that their property will be divided equally. The exception to this rule is when it concerns a specific asset or property for which there was no intention of sharing.
An example of this is when a woman has expensive jewelry and she made it clear at the beginning of the relationship that these jewelry belong only to her and that they will not constitute Object for property division At any stage in the future.
To examine whether there was an intention to share, one must examine the couple’s daily life and the overall picture.
To save on legal proceedings, it is recommended to sign a financial agreement that will determine exactly what the joint property is, and how it will be divided in the event of a divorce. Divorce Or separation – if and when necessary.
Needless to say, many couples are also well-known in the public. Contact a lawyer to draft a financial agreementAnd it serves them when needed.
The court’s decision regarding the intention to share and divide the apartment
The court ruled that the fact that the apartment was registered in the woman’s name has very important proprietary significance, under the Real Estate Law.
The court also determined that these are spouses who are known to the public for all intents and purposes, since they maintained a joint household for 17 years and maintained a family life together.
However, as noted above, this does not necessarily show an intention to share property.
The court ruled as follows:
“אולם, לא בכל מקרה בו בני זוג מקיימים משק בית משותף ואורח חיים תקין נאמר כי אלו ידועים בצבור אשר מבקשים להחיל עליהם זכויות וחובות כזוג נשוי. יש בני זוג הרואים בקיום קשר שכזה אך כשלב ביניים …ישות נפרדת ומוגדרת של חיים משותפים, אלטרנטיבה להיותם נשואים תוך כוונה משותפת, גלויה וידועה ולא אך כשלב טרם וטרום נשואים“.
מכאן, שבית המשפט פנה לבחון את משטר השיתופיות בין אותם בני זוג, כדי להכריע האם יש מקום לחלק את הדירה שווה בשווה.
בית המשפט קבע כי הסכם הממון בין בני הזוג אינו הסכם ממון, אלא יותר הסכם חיים משותפים. על כן הוא לא התבסס על תוכנו בהכרעה.
בית המשפט קבע עובדתית:
“שהצדדים אף לא נישאו זה לזו והתובע לא השתתף בתשלום המשכנתא. נכון הוא כי הצדדים המשיכו לחיות יחדיו והתובע אף סייע בכלכלת התא המשפחתי ביצע שיפורים בנכס, אולם לא קיים התניות שבהסכם – הצדדים לא נישאו, ההסכם לא אושר בבית המשפט והתובע לא השתתף בתשלומי המשכנתא“.
מי שצריך להוכיח את כוונת השיתוף הוא הגבר בנסיבות התובע, והוא לא עמד בנטל. מה גם, שהוא נמנע מלהביא עדים חשובים שיכלו לתמוך בטענתו.
בית המשפט דחה את תביעת הגבר, וקבע כי אין לחלק את הדירה שווה בשווה. כמו כן, הוא חייב את הגבר בהוצאות שכר טרחת עורך דין בסך 25,000 ₪.
