This week, we will continue to discuss the topic of property division. This time, we will focus on assets accumulated before marriage, and how they should be divided in the event of a divorce.<\/b><\/p>\r\n
As I mentioned in my previous columns, the Financial Relations Law states that the joint property, divided during divorce, will not include the following assets:<\/p>\r\n
\u00a01. Property acquired before the marriage, or given to one of the parties as a gift or inheritance<\/p>\r\n
2. Property that the spouses have agreed in writing will not be divided between them<\/p>\r\n
3. Benefit or compensation paid to only one of the spouses<\/p>\r\n
\u00a0I would like to point out that just as the spouse is not entitled to the rights within the framework of the aforementioned assets, so he is not supposed to share in his debts. That is, if a spouse established a business before marriage, and this marital process accumulated losses - only the spouse who is the owner of the business is supposed to bear them, and not his spouse.<\/p>\r\n
However, to the extent that the court determines that the other spouse also has some share in the business, he will also have to participate in the proportional share of the debts.<\/p>\r\n
Over the years, the rulings of the courts and tribunals have developed a reference to the law of assets that are not supposed to be joint, and there are quite a few cases in which it has been ruled that assets accumulated before the marriage are joint. In fact, there is a distinction between 2 main types of assets:<\/b><\/p>\r\n
1. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>External residential apartment- An apartment that was purchased by one of the spouses before marriage, or given to one of them as an inheritance or gift - but the family members lived in it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n In this type of case, a reduced burden of proof will be required to prove that it should be joint, and divided between the spouses in the balance of resources situation, especially when we are dealing with an apartment in which the family members lived for a while, renovated it, and their marriage was normal.<\/p>\r\n In fact, there is a ruling that states that in the case where the spouse registered as the owner of the apartment allowed his or her partner to live in the apartment for a period of time, raised their family there, and invested their money in it (such as renovations) - the burden of proving that there was no intention to share is on him or her.<\/p>\r\n \u00a02. A business established before the marriage or savings saved before the marriage and placed in a separate account - in cases of this type, a relatively high burden of proof will be required to prove that <\/b>These are supposed to be shared and divided between the spouses in the balance of resources, since only one party accumulated them and made exclusive use of them - of course, unless there is a sharing of these assets.<\/p>\r\n What happens if a business increases in value during the marriage?<\/b><\/p>\r\n As mentioned, a business established before marriage is not supposed to be divided between the parties.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \u00a0However, sometimes the court and the judiciary award a share in the increase in the value of the property, usually when it is proven that the other party - who did not establish the business - also contributed directly to the increase in its value. In such a case, he may be entitled to a certain portion of the value of the improvement to which he contributed.<\/p>\r\n \u00a0The ruling determined that a party claiming that his action and investment resulted in an increase in the value of the property, and therefore he is entitled to a proportional share of this improvement, must prove that:<\/p>\r\n \u00a01. The increase in value was mainly due to his work on the property.<\/p>\r\n \u00a02. The increase in the value of assets did not result from an increase in the value of assets of the type under discussion.<\/p>\r\n \u00a03. The value of the assets due to the spouse's investment exceeds the value if the assets were realized during the marriage and the proceeds were invested in a bank investment or other normal passive investment. In other words, it must be proven that if the asset had been sold during the marriage, and the proceeds had been invested - the profit received from the investment would have been lower than what would have been received if the asset had not been sold.<\/p>\r\n \u00a0Nothing in this article is intended to replace or substitute for individual legal advice. Reliance on the information is the sole responsibility of the user.<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Attorney Ariel Dror answers divorce issues relevant to anyone who finds themselves in this difficult situation: I purchased an apartment with my own money, and after my marriage I lived in it with my husband for twenty years. Should I now share the property with him?","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[2444,512,8775,1603],"class_list":["post-162889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4","tag-2444","tag-512","tag-8775","tag-1603"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n