• Of money

• All articles

Won the lottery, gave money to the spouse and then sued him back

A woman who won the lottery for NIS 40 million gave her partner NIS 300,000 of it.

However after they separated she demanded the amount back.

This case is not only bizarre but also complex.

What has the court ruled and why is there an important lesson for all of us here as well?

Tags

• lotto

• Winning

• Claim

• Loan

• Gift

David Rosenthal

Sunday, October 24, 2021, 10:22 Updated: Monday, October 25, 2021, 11:04

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

Who does not dream of winning the first prize in the lottery? This story is about a woman whose dream came true and she won the first prize in the lottery and pocketed tens of millions of shekels.

From the winnings, she gave gifts to her relatives and acquaintances, and among other things, she transferred a sum of NIS 300,000 to her then-partner for more than 30 years. But then a problem arose, after they broke up. She demanded her money back. What did the court rule?

Let's go back to 2008, when the plaintiff won the first prize in the lottery in the amazing amount of NIS 40 million before tax. Shortly after winning, she transferred a cumulative sum of NIS 300,000 to her then-partner for about 30 years.

Upon receipt of the funds, the husband's accountant demanded a detailed explanation of their nature for the purpose of forwarding the appropriate report to the tax authorities. Therefore, the plaintiff - who was then the spouse - confirmed in her signature that this was a gift she gave to her spouse.

After the separation, the parties exchanged personal and detailed letters, and in a long and detailed letter written by the defendant, he offered a number of offers and options for payment of the NIS 300,000, along with a number of checks "on account" at the plaintiff's request.

The absurdity is that without the letter, the claim might have been dismissed outright due to statute of limitations under the law, but a perusal of the letter shows that the defendant - in his innocence and sincerity - is the one who stopped the statute of limitations and thus allowed his ex-spouse to sue.

Good to know (promoted)

Custom insoles in half an hour - and you go out into a new life

To the full article

Someone won the lottery and gave you a grant?

Do not rush to sign ... (Photo: AP)

Scattered gifts and did not lend money

After the parties separated the woman demanded to return the funds on the grounds that these were given as a loan. The court presented a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff in which he offered to spread the repayment of the debt and even attached checks "on the account", but the court decided to dismiss the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay court costs.

The court is required to balance the signature of the plaintiff declaring a gift with the letter of the defendant proposing a number of ways to settle the payments.

After careful consideration, the court decided to dismiss the claim based on a number of reasons: the complete absence of any loan agreement, as well as the absence of any payment requirements for the years from the transfer of funds and from the date of separation until the claim is filed. And not in a loan, and of course this is reinforced in view of the signed trouble that the plaintiff gave to the defendant's accountant.

Her court investigation revealed that after the huge win, the plaintiff purchased a residential apartment for each of her nephews (at a cost higher than the amount of NIS 300,000 she sued) - a matter that reinforces the understanding that the plaintiff scattered gifts (and did not lend money).

This conclusion was greatly sharpened when the court examined the nature of the long-term relationship and found it to be a relationship full of expressions of affection and love - which greatly weakens the conclusion that the transfer of funds was actually made as a loan.

In these circumstances, the court decided to dismiss the lawsuit, and in the ruling, it ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant legal expenses in the amount of tens of thousands of shekels.

Did you receive a gift?

Consult before you sign anything

Adv. Daniel Friedenberg and Adv. Ohad Hoffman (Photo: Yael Cohen)

Attorneys Daniel Friedenberg and Ohad Hoffman of the Hoffman & Friedenberg

firm

specializes in family and inheritance matters, believe that "this is a judgment with very important practical morals: the defendant's letter presented in court in which he offered to spread the debt repayment could tip duty and impose the burden of persuading the court that it was a loan.

In these circumstances, the court was required to exhaust the process to the end to determine and reject the claim. another reason why it would be better to refrain from writing a letter is the fact that the letter was stopped in the period of limitation prescribed by law and without it would be Rejecting the lawsuit outright and saving the defendant from conducting the proceedings.Previous consultation, attorneys Friedenberg and Hoffman explain, could certainly have saved the defendant time, effort and resources (financial and mental) invested in the legal proceedings.

In the margins, the lawyers note that "it remains only to wonder whether the huge amount of money the plaintiff won affected the outcome of the verdict, since the amount transferred to the defendant and which formed the basis of the lawsuit was much less than one percent of the plaintiff's total winnings. The question is definitely in the air. "

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments