She cheated on her husband and you will not receive a share in the apartment!
As a general rule, infidelity by one of the spouses does not negate the intention to share a residential apartment. However, in certain cases it is possible to rule otherwise, for example as happened in November 2018, when the High Court of Justice upheld a ruling made in a proceeding 9780/17 So-and-so vs. the Great Rabbinical Court.
The ruling was that the woman who cheated on her husband would not be entitled to receive half of the residential apartment registered in her husband’s name, despite the fact that throughout their marriage she lived with him in the same apartment, which was built after marriage and even though renovations were made to it during their marriage and from the money in the couple’s joint account.
Justices Mintz and Stein supported the ruling, while Justice Amit strongly opposed it, because he claimed that it was a decision made by the Great Rabbinical Court based on religious law and in complete contradiction to civil law, according to which it is obligated to rule according to the law.
Civil law does not apply a connection between an act of infidelity and the denial of the intention to share, but in the aforementioned case, matters proceeded differently and raised an important question – can a woman’s infidelity deny the intention to share in a residential apartment? In the review before you, a lawyer explains Sharon faculty The important and interesting verdict.
The authority to deny the intention to share a residential apartment
The judicial systems that are authorized to make decisions on issues related to divorce proceedings are: My family Family Law and the rabbinical courts.
It is important to clarify that in addition to the issue of granting a divorce, which is discussed only in the rabbinical courts, there are additional issues that can be discussed in both systems and between them. Custody Children and visitation arrangements, payment of alimony, Property division and so on.
Rabbinical courts in Israel still tend to rule according to Jewish law, which is not only considered outdated but also often discriminates against women. They view a woman’s infidelity as grounds for forced divorce and denial of rights to alimony and equal division of property.
In contrast, the legal system operates according to civil law, which advocates equal rights between men and women and in any case bases decisions on property issues without any connection to For betrayals And in accordance with the rule of sharing assets stipulated by civil law.
As mentioned, rabbinical courts are also obligated to act according to civil law in all matters related to the division of property, but unfortunately, sometimes the reality on the ground is different, as was the case in the case of 9780/17 So-and-so vs. the Great Rabbinical Court.
When can an intention to share a residential apartment be denied?
In the judgment approved in the proceeding 9780/17 So-and-so vs. the Great Rabbinical Court It is alleged that the woman cheated on her husband for several months and that she did not have marital relations with her husband for years, did not take care of cleaning, meals, or family unity.
The divorce was quickly granted and it was determined that it would not have an impact on the issue of property division, as all assets that belonged to the husband before the marriage would remain in his possession, while those acquired during their marriage would be divided between the two equally.
The dispute in question regarding the rights to the residential apartment arose when the woman demanded to receive half of the rights to the residential apartment in which the two lived for over 20 years and which was registered in her husband’s name only, but was built after marriage and even renovated with the couple’s money.
In the aforementioned case, the rabbis argued that there was indeed an intention to share on the part of the husband, and this can be inferred based on a variety of justifications, including the fact that the husband declared and verbally committed to his wife for future sharing of the apartment, and furthermore, that the construction of the property, as well as the later renovation and improvement, were done during a period when the two were already married.
The question of whether the woman’s rights to share the residential apartment should be recognized in this case was answered in the affirmative, and it was determined that the woman would receive half of the value of the apartment.
The husband appealed the decision, claiming that there was no oral intention to share, that the renovation was minimal, and that in any case, during the renovation period, the wife did not work at all, which means that she was not financially involved in covering the expenses for the renovation.
After the appeal was filed, two out of three judges at the Great Rabbinical Court chose to accept the husband’s claim and considered the wife’s infidelity as a consideration in the decision to deny the intention to share, claiming that if the husband had known in advance that the wife was cheating on him, he would not have been willing to share in the first place.
It is important to note that considering betrayal as a consideration for negating intent to co-operate is contrary to the provisions of the law, and not only that, but if and when it is decided to attribute importance to betrayal, importance must be given to the date of betrayal, which did not happen in the case in question.
The woman’s petition to the High Court and the rejection of the appeal
The same woman decided to petition the High Court of Justice, claiming that the Great Rabbinical Court chose to attribute importance to the issue of infidelity in its decision to deny her rights in the residential apartment and, therefore, acted according to religious law and not according to civil law, as required by law.
The High Court judges rejected the woman’s appeal and upheld the ruling by a majority of two judges, Mintz and Stein, against one, Judge Amit. Amit believed that the rabbinical court, in all its considerations for denying the intent to collude, took the woman’s infidelity and, worse still, even the attitude toward infidelity into great weight.
According to Justices Mintz and Stein, the fact that the High Court supported the decision to deny that woman the right to receive half of the residential apartment is not relevant to the act of betrayal and is even disconnected from it. Indeed, it was not possible to prove an intention to share the residential apartment, even without any connection to betrayal.
Moreover, Justices Mintz and Stein clarified and said that they view a wife’s infidelity and a husband’s infidelity in the same light, but in any case, since, according to them, the decision was not based on infidelity, no connection should be made between it and the apartment issue.
Even if treason was included in the considerations of the Great Rabbinical Court, it was not the only factor in the decision, and certainly not the main one, and even without it, in any case, it would not have been possible to prove an intent to collude.
Finally, a majority decision was made that the woman would not be entitled to receive rights in the residential apartment, but the woman chose to file a request for another hearing in the hope of changing the ruling.
Social media was abuzz with the decision, with angry posts written on Facebook in protest. One post stated that Justices Mintz and Stein, who come from the religious sector and are considered conservative, made a decision that was influenced by their personal positions.
It was also said that the two were recently appointed to their positions on the Supreme Court by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, with the aim of making a turnaround in the Supreme Court and giving it a religious character.
In conclusion, although there will be exceptional cases in which prolonged infidelity will constitute proof of the absence of partnership or will put an end to partnership, it will not be sufficient to deny the rights of either party to the joint property.
We will also explain that it is necessary to distinguish between property accumulated before or after the betrayal, and in any case, if we decide to apply the cessation of sharing due to the crisis, we must apply it only to the assets accumulated after the betrayal, and either way, consult with Experienced divorce lawyer and examine each case on its own merits.
