On video: Jaffa brutal attack in broad daylight because of a divorce dispute/documentation on social networks according to Section 27 A of the Copyright Law
In 2008, after 26 years of marriage, the couple's relationship ran aground, and they divorced.
In 2018, ten years after the divorce, the man filed a lawsuit against his ex-wife to dissolve the partnership in two apartments that were registered in both of their names at the time - the residential apartment and another apartment on the ground, which was partly used for the woman's alternative medicine treatment business, and the other part was rented out.
In addition, the man also petitioned for a balance of resources in his ex-wife's business, claiming to receive half of the value of the reputation the business has accumulated over the years.
But the man was not satisfied with that.
In another lawsuit that he filed, he petitioned to receive proper usage fees for the two apartments from 2008 until the date of their sale, based on the calculation of half of the rent that could have been collected for them throughout those years, for a total of about NIS 900,000.
Through attorney Lucy Meir, the woman submitted defense documents, in which she rejected all the man's demands one by one. According to attorney Meir, the man chose to ignore the most essential facts, arising from two agreements signed between the couple.
Sometimes it's better not to sue/ShutterStock
The man claimed: the agreements have no validity
Attorney Meir presented to the court two agreements signed between the parties, one in 2008 and the other in 2013. In each of the agreements, it was stipulated that the woman would receive half of the rights belonging to the plaintiff in the residential apartment, while the man would receive in return the joint funds accumulated by the couple in the joint account, And through them he will purchase an apartment in his name only. According to attorney Meir, that is what we will do.
And so, only when the agreements were presented in court, the man remembered to raise two new claims, which, according to Attorney Meir, not only had not been mentioned, even in an allusion, before, but were also completely incompatible with the two agreements signed between the parties. The
man's one claim was that the agreements have no validity because they were not approved by the family court, while the second claim was that it was a cancellation of an obligation to give a gift on his part to the wife, following conduct that justifies its cancellation.
with an exclusive discount
The Israeli company that invented hair removers does it again
In collaboration with Epilady
Attorney Lucy Meir/Sam Yitzhakov
Judge Ester Zhitnicki Rekover from the Tel Aviv Family Court rejected the man's claims one by one in a ruling.
As for the man's claim that the agreements are not valid because they were not approved by the court, the judge stated that she accepts the arguments of attorney Meir and stated that an agreement, which was not approved by the court, is also valid by virtue of an obligation between the parties which it reflects, when an obligation This is where the provisions of the Contracts Law apply, including the duty of good faith.
In the verdict, the judge criticized the man for the fact that for ten years, from the divorce to the date of filing the lawsuits, he chose to conduct himself according to what was stated in the agreements signed by the parties, and only after 10 years did he remember to claim their invalidity , when in the meantime Attorney Meir came back and claimed that this gift generates double profit for him in bad faith since the value of the real estate has increased significantly.
According to all of these, the judge determined that he is precluded from claiming this.
As for the man's claim, according to which he has the right to cancel a gift he gave, the judge determined that it is not a gift, since for the plaintiff's relinquishment of half of his share in the residential apartment, the woman gave him a consideration - the joint funds accumulated by the couple in the joint account.
Therefore, the judge ruled that the man's rights in the residential apartment will be fully registered in the woman's name.
The judge also rejected the man's claim, to receive half of the proper usage fees for the apartments, in the amount of hundreds of thousands of shekels.
The judge ruled that when it comes to spouses, the demand for appropriate usage fees does not stand on its own, but is related to the entire conflict, and therefore all aspects related to the conflict must be examined.
"In this case, the court is convinced that there is no basis and justification for ruling proper usage fees," stated the judge.
Divorce mediation.
The man remembered to come forward with claims after ten years/ShutterStock
No, no and no: the reasons for rejecting the claims
The judge justified her decision by the fact that since then the couple separated in 2008 and for ten years, until the lawsuit was filed in 2018, the man did not demand from the woman a usage fee for the apartments.
According to the judge, for this reason alone, it is necessary to check whether there is a basis for receiving usage fees from the date of filing the lawsuit, but she does not find it appropriate to charge the defendant with usage fees.
As for the residential apartment, the judge determined that according to the agreement signed between the parties in 2008, one apartment is owned by the man (the apartment purchased by him from the joint funds), while the residential apartment is fully owned by the defendant.
Since on the basis of this agreement, the woman did not claim any usage fees from the man for his residence in his apartment, even though it was purchased with joint funds, there is no place for the plaintiff's demand for proper usage fees for the residential apartment.
As for the ground floor apartment, for which the man also applied to receive rent, the judge ruled that she found the woman's testimony reliable, and rejected the man's claim.
The woman testified in court that the man paid the maintenance of their minor son out of his share of the rent.
The woman also claimed that she was the one who alone bore the monthly and current mortgage payment repayments.
The man's demand for a balance of resources regarding the woman's alternative medicine treatment business was also rejected by the judge and she reasoned: "This is the defendant working in a simple business, in a third of the apartment on the ground, not a single 'primitive evidence' was brought, that this is a business with a reputation that must be taken into account, and under these circumstances, there is no basis for calculation reputation".
At the end of the verdict, the man was ordered to pay the woman court costs and attorney's fees in the amount of NIS 45,000.
More on the same topic:
Claim