Title: Supreme Court Rules on Division of Joint Property for Unmarried Couples
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously answered a crucial question regarding the division of joint property between unmarried couples after separation. The court ruling states that property determined to belong to both spouses can only be divided equally, unless stated otherwise by the Knesset. The court further emphasized that fairness and deserving more on one side are not relevant factors in determining the division.
The case that led to this ruling involved a woman who demanded half of her husband’s business. The Supreme Court’s decision, however, favored the equal distribution principle.
The judges in the case, Yitzhak Amit, Yael Wilner, and David Mintz, addressed a not-so-self-evident issue that trial courts often encounter. The couple involved had lived together for 15 years without getting married. During their relationship, the woman registered an apartment in her name in the kibbutz where they lived. The court had to decide whether the apartment belonged to her individually or whether it should be divided equally between both parties.
Initially, the family court accepted the man’s position, considering the couple’s long-term relationship, shared responsibilities, and financial contributions. However, the woman appealed the decision to the district court, which ruled in her favor. The district court argued that even if the accumulated property was deemed common property, it could still be divided unequally. The court introduced the concept of a “weakened partnership” where one party could receive more than the other.
The man then appealed to the Supreme Court, and Judge Yael Wilner believed that this fundamental issue required a decision by the panel. Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the district court’s ruling, upholding the equal distribution principle.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on Israel’s “sharing rule,” which addresses the reality of unmarried couples living together due to the absence of civil marriages in the country. This practice has become increasingly common, with couples holding non-recognized matrimonial ceremonies or registering their marriages abroad without reporting it.
The sharing rule applies to married couples as well as public figures or celebrities who live together without being officially married. This rule ensures that property accumulated during the relationship is considered joint property, unless there is clear evidence of a different intention. Even assets not fully accumulated during the relationship can be considered shared under certain circumstances. The court’s rationale for this rule is to prevent disputes and to uphold the principle of joint effort in the relationship.
The district court’s attempt to deviate from the equal distribution principle and distribute property unequally was struck down by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The court clarified that the law on financial relations, which applies to married couples, does not apply to unmarried couples, including public figures. The court emphasized that any change in the principle of equal distribution would require legislative action by the Knesset.
Although the Knesset is unlikely to address this issue soon, the Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the strength and relevance of the sharing rule. As more couples choose to avoid traditional marriage in Israel, the sharing rule may become the default principle of property division for unmarried couples.
Please note: The Globes system strictly adheres to a code of ethics, filtering out any expressions of violence, racism, incitement, or inappropriate discourse automatically.