Divorce of permanent military personnel – facts and figures
Statistics indicate an increase in divorce cases among military officers who retired from permanent service.
Divorce disputes between military personnel can sometimes be particularly complex, whether in light of the social rights of military personnel serving in permanent service or the young retirement age in comparison to the private market, data that may have many implications in the event of a divorce.
Over the past few years, there has been a gradual increase in the number of couples divorcing, where the man or woman is or was a permanent member of the military – officers or soldiers.
Due to the significant financial significance of separation and divorce in these cases, it is strongly recommended to consult with an experienced family lawyer in advance, who is familiar with the nature of service in the regular army and its future implications in divorce cases.
The overview below will help you focus and understand the main points that each of us needs to know before making decisions and taking any actions.
Pensions for permanent employees: up to 2.5 times higher than other civil servants!
Law Financial Relations Between Spouses 1973-1973 changed the way in which property is divided between married couples after their separation.
Prior to the enactment of the law, the division of assets was according to the rule of partnership, which determined that there was a presumption between spouses that they had the intention of creating an equal partnership in assets and dividing them equally in the event of separation.
For an immediate conversation with Attorney Sharon Segal, call: 077-997-4020
On the other hand, according to the law, if spouses who married after January 1, 1973 did not make a Agreement Finance Their property will be divided according to a resource balancing arrangement.
This arrangement states that the marriage itself does not grant the spouses any obligations or rights to the other’s property, although upon the termination of the marriage, each spouse will be entitled to half of the value of the assets, other than those specified by law.
All assets mean including benefit funds, training funds, retirement benefits, savings, and future pension rights.
In addition, the court may also include assets that were not supposed to be balanced, exclude other assets from the balance, determine that the balance will be made according to the value of the assets at an earlier date, and more.
During proceedings Divorce And in order to calculate the share to which the spouse is entitled in the future pension funds, the court contacts an actuary who calculates all of the rights that the individual has accumulated during his service in the security forces.
The result can be a single amount given at the time of asset distribution or a future benefit or annuity.
The actuary considers parameters such as age, mortality, inflation, and more.
In the case of a permanent employee who has been married for 27 years and served in the army for thirty years in a combat role, who is paid 65% of a fixed salary of 40,000 shekels, he should receive 26,000 shekels gross or 18,000 shekels net.
Therefore, 90% of the pension rights will be divided between the couple and the woman will receive 8,100 shekels.
In the verdict TAMSH 413461/96 So-and-so v. So-and-so The plaintiff and her husband divorced according to Divorce Agreement In which the husband promised to pay the wife, among other things, half of his retirement compensation from the army, including pension and severance pay.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit demanding that he transfer her share of his military pension to her as stipulated in the agreement.
During the proceedings between the parties, a Supreme Court ruling was issued in other cases on the same subject, according to which the spouse of the military serviceman is not entitled to receive her share by virtue of the presumption of co-ownership directly from the IDF.
The Pension Law prohibits the transfer of benefits, so a question that has arisen many times is whether the wife is entitled to receive the funds directly from the husband’s employer.
In the verdict Ltd. 10916/03 IDF-State of Israel vs. Income Tax The Supreme Court dealt with three appeals.
In this context, the question arose whether the woman is entitled, by virtue of the presumption of co-ownership, to receive her share of the pension directly from the army, which is her partner’s employer, and if so, what is the tax rate she must pay.
The three judgments of Home Family Law They determined that women are entitled to receive their share directly from the army based on the rule of sharing.
The district courts rejected the army’s appeal against the ruling, hence the request for an appeal to the Supreme Court. According to the army, the court erred in determining that the woman’s property rights were valid in her relationship with him..
The Supreme Court rules that pension rights constitute part of the property divided between the parties based on the presumption of co-ownership. However, it rules that the spouse of a permanent employee does not have the right to receive his share directly from the army.
Despite the High Court’s ruling, there is also a different ruling by the district courts regarding the transfer of the benefit.
In the verdict Case No. 001128/02 IDF Payments Department vs. State of Israel, Income Tax Commission The army filed an appeal against a Family Court ruling that ordered it to transfer forty percent of the husband’s pension amount each month directly to his ex-wife’s account.
The court ruled that since the couple were married for twenty of the husband’s twenty-five years of military service, her ex-partner must pay her 40% of his monthly pension.
The District Court, headed by the Honorable Judge Yehudit Shtupman, accepted the appeal regarding the taxation of the divorced woman’s share according to her ex-husband’s tax brackets, but left the transfer of the amount directly to the woman intact.
In the verdict Case No. 1176/08 So-and-so v. State of Israel – Ministry of Defense The Family Court dismissed the appellant’s claim against the Ministry of Defense for payments made by the army to her husband. The appellant and her husband were married in 1972 and he served in the IDF until 1993.
During 1992, the appellant filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of her rights to her husband’s retirement benefits from the army. In 1995, the army transferred the funds to the husband without transferring half of her rights to the plaintiff.
Honorable District Court Judge Esther Kobo ruled that the ruling issued in 1993 does not bind the state because the lawsuit was against the husband, who did not file a defense, and not against the IDF.
Career assets of regular army personnel
Career assets mean assets that the spouse can accumulate in the future in light of his earning potential, or assets that came to him by virtue of his career development while the other person was concerned with the well-being of the family rather than his professional well-being.
Law Financial Relations Allows the court to determine that the balancing of resources will not be done in a ratio of half and half, but rather any other ratio as deemed appropriate, taking into account, among other things, the earning capacity of the spouses and future assets.
In light of the fact that permanent employees retire early at age 45 and not at age 67 as in the regular labor market, the assumption is that they still have high future earning potential, and therefore the party who invested in the family while the other invested his time in his military career can claim that he deserves to enjoy the fruits of the investment.
More than ever, it is important to consult with an experienced lawyer!
Contact Lawyer specializing in family law And in the rights of security forces personnel, it is recommended when a conflict arises between spouses in which one of them serves in the permanent army, due to the complexity of the social rights of permanent personnel.
It is important to seek advice in advance, given the need and importance of considering all aspects involved in separation, future payments, and especially everything related to the matter. Property division.
Only after meeting with a lawyer will it be possible to choose the desired course of action to preserve your rights now and in the future.
