Many couples have a signed financial agreement. It is a smart and recommended step to draw up such an agreement. Sometimes, despite the agreement, we encounter disputes in which the spouses who signed the agreement object to the terms they signed and attempt to annul it by filing a lawsuit in the Family Court.
Financial agreements can be a great help when spouses arrive To a state of divorce and separation. On the other hand, whether at the time of concluding financial agreements or at the time of their implementation, disputes, claims, and difficulties may arise.
It is important to understand and remember that the agreement is like a legal contract for all intents and purposes. According to contract law, if it is found that a contract was made in appearance, then it can be requested to be canceled.
So then, what is the ruling on Agreement Finance Which is claimed to have been signed only to evade creditors? That is: a financial agreement that was signed only for show – can it be canceled in the event of a dispute?
For a personal conversation with a lawyer, call: 077-997-4020
This question was discussed by the Family Court in a proceeding TAMSH (Ashdod) 12961-05 A. N A.
The nature of the conflict and the attempt to cancel the agreement
This is a case about a husband and wife who married in the early 1990s, had two children, and maintained a household according to tradition.
In 1997, the couple sought a divorce and did so by mutual consent. Signing a divorce agreement. Among the reasons that led to the divorce were debts that the couple had accumulated.
The divorce agreement settled the issue of child support to be paid by the father and even stipulated that the movables that remained in the house where they lived together would remain in the mother’s possession.
The agreement also stipulated that the parties would not have rights to the rights that each of them had accrued at their place of employment.
In addition, it was stipulated that the husband would ensure that guarantees that the wife had signed for the purpose of operating and maintaining the husband’s business were cancelled. The agreement was given the force of a court judgment in 1998.
After they divorced, each spouse lived separately, with the husband occasionally staying at his ex-wife’s home.
In 2000, the woman bought an apartment, paid a down payment on it, and registered it in her name. Mortgage. The husband moved in with her in an apartment in 2003.
At this stage, the couple signed an agreement in which it was determined that they were living together and that this did not detract from or add to the rights of either party over the other.
The financial agreement also stipulated that the apartment they live in was owned solely by the wife. The agreement was not approved by the Family Court because the husband requested that it be withdrawn from him.
In 2005, the husband left the apartment and their relationship ended for good.
Now the husband submitted lawsuit to the court demanding the annulment of the divorce agreement Signed in 1998, on the grounds that the agreement was made for show only, in order to hide assets from the husband’s creditors.
As part of the husband’s claims, it was claimed that the apartment purchased by the wife allegedly belongs to them jointly, as do his debts registered in his name alone.
The wife, on the other hand, claimed that the divorce agreement that was signed was consensual and fully reflected the will of the parties. She claims that the apartment was purchased by her and is her sole property, and there is no reason to involve the husband in its division.
Read more about: Joint obligations of spouses in the event of divorce
How did the court decide?
The court dismissed the lawsuit, while sharply criticizing the plaintiff and stating:
“Apparently, the plaintiff believes that agreements are nothing more than a piece of paper whose writing is intended to serve the purpose that is before his eyes at that time. In his opinion, courts and tribunals are nothing more than a “rubber stamp” intended to give additional validity to those “pieces of paper”, and they too can be canceled at his will. As far as it depends on him, he can continue to sign documents and request their cancellation when necessary.“.
The verdict continued:
“The plaintiff should be told loudly and clearly: “A wrongful embezzlement will not give rise to a right of action.” The world is not a “puppet” that moves on a string according to the movements of his hands. Agreements must be kept and judgments must be respected. His cause of action, according to which he entered into the agreement in order to evade creditors, is a wrongful cause of action. Consequently, there is no room for him to have a right of action against anyone – in general, and against his ex-wife – in particular. I rely on these basic considerations to dismiss the claim outright, while charging the plaintiff with appropriate expenses.“.
On the factual side, the court determined that there was a genuine disagreement between the couple over the years, which greatly weakens the plaintiff’s claim that the agreement was made in appearance only.
For example, the court accepted the woman’s evidence that she had lived in her family’s home for a period of time, and even opened an enforcement case against the husband. In addition, it was determined that the husband had left suicide notes twice in order to pressure the woman to allow him to stay overnight in her family’s home when he had nowhere else to live.
Home Family Law He even accepted the woman’s claim that she allowed him to live in the apartment she purchased in order to make things easier for him, in light of his financial difficulties.
In this context, the court also rejected the husband’s claim to share the apartment, and its words on the subject are correct:
“Even on a moral level, there is no justification for the defendant, who suffered from the plaintiff both during their marriage and after the divorce, and who occasionally gave in to his pressures and provided him with a roof over his head, now having to share with him the apartment she purchased with her own hard work or being a partner in the debts he created himself.“.
In light of all of the above, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and he was also ordered to pay legal costs in the amount of 10,000 NIS. We then learn that canceling a financial agreement is not a simple matter and the court will not rush to do so for legal reasons and subject to the circumstances of each individual case.
Click here to receive legal advice regarding financial agreements.
