Get to know the law of financial relations
Until the enactment of the Financial Relations Law, the presumption of partnership applied to spouses who married before January 1, 1974, and states that, assuming that the course of the marriage was proper and the spouses invested a joint effort in maintaining the family unit, their intention was to fully share their assets, and therefore, in the event of separation, the assets must be divided equally between them.
If one of the parties claims a larger portion of the assets, he or she must prove that there was no intention to share some or all of the assets. The presumption of sharing applies to assets such as a residential apartment, bank accounts, social rights, and business assets.
Over the years, family courts have been involved in analyzing the law in various and varied cases in which disputes have erupted that have led to proceedings. Divorce.
Understanding and applying the law is not simple, so it is highly recommended. Consult with a lawyer Be educated before making any decisions.
To know more about the law and its application…
The Financial Relations between Spouses Law 5733 – 1973 applies to couples who married as of January 1, 1974, and its purpose is: To arrange the division of property of the spouses during the marriage and at the time of its termination.
It includes three main topics:
Resource balancing: According to the law, in the event of a marriage dissolution, each spouse is entitled to half of the assets they have accumulated. The assets also include social security benefits, savings, and assets registered in the name of one of the spouses, but do not include assets that were owned by one of the spouses before the marriage or those received as a gift or inheritance by one of the spouses during the marriage, as well as benefits received by one of the spouses due to bodily injury or death.
The actual balance of resources is the balance of the monetary value of the rights after deducting debts; first the debts to entities such as banks and companies are paid and then the remainder is distributed.
Sale of a residential apartment: If the balance of resources includes the sale of an apartment that is still used as the residence of the couple or their children, the sale will not be realized as long as they do not have another living arrangement.
Financial agreement: The couple can arrange before or during their marriage the division of property within the framework of a written agreement that has legal validity from a court or tribunal (an agreement made before the marriage can also be signed by a notary or the marriage registrar).
Another condition is that the couple entered into the agreement with full consent and while understanding its meaning.
Read more about: Agreement Finance
Example from the court decision
We brought from the legal database an example of a ruling regarding the Financial Relations Law, which dealt with an apartment registered in the husband’s name to which the wife claimed rights after the divorce.
The background to the case is a couple who divorced after 24 years of marriage. According to the woman, Home Rabbinic Law who determined the division of property erred in determining that no partnership was created in the apartment, which was registered in the husband’s name alone, and he should have ordered a balancing of resources according to the Financial Relations Law of 5733.
The apartment was purchased by the man and his father before the marriage and was registered in the husband’s name three months after the wedding.
The woman claimed to share the property based on two arguments: First, she claims that an agreement was made between the parties’ parents, according to which her parents would bear the expenses of the wedding and the equipment, and the husband’s parents would purchase an apartment. Second, it is possible to recognize the sharing of the property even when the balancing of resources does not apply to it.
The Rabbinical Court ruled that there was no evidence of the agreement in question except for the testimony of the woman’s mother, which was not convincing due to the family relationship. In addition, during the marriage the woman did not mention the agreement or request rights to the apartment.
The woman claimed that the court should have defined, by virtue of its authority, a sharing of the property even if it was owned exclusively by one of the spouses, and the husband also promised her that he would transfer the registration of the apartment to both of their names.
The court rejected the woman’s claims, ruling that the husband’s intent to complicity was not proven.
The woman appealed to the Supreme Court, but this court also accepted the rulings of the rabbinical courts; the judges ruled that since the woman’s claims raised facts and not legal issues, the courts’ authority should not be interfered with, and therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Interesting rulings that deal with the analysis of the law:
- Supreme Court ruling in case 1915/91 Esther Yaakovi v. Ezra Yaakovi
- Supreme Court ruling in case AA 2199/91 Simentov Nafisi v. Victoria Nafisi
- Judgment of the Family Court in Tiberias in the proceeding Tamesh 860-09-09 S.A. v. M.A.
- Judgment of the Family Court in the Tamesh (Tel Aviv) 65441/98 case.
