Judge Yehoram Shaked of the Tel Aviv Family Court ruled that the businessman must pay two undisputed sums: 35 million shekels (≈ $9.5 million) linked to the consumer price index and 57 million dollars (≈ 210–215 million shekels) plus interest. Together, the amounts total roughly 230 million shekels (≈ $62 million). The court also rejected his request to delay the payments until his claims against the woman were examined.
The case stems from a prenuptial agreement signed about 15 years ago and approved by the court, followed by an additional agreement signed about nine years later and also given legal force.
Under the original agreement, the couple maintained full separation of assets, with specific exceptions. It stipulated that upon notice of separation, the businessman would pay the woman a one-time 35 million shekel sum adjusted for inflation. It also addressed the division of assets, including a home in central Israel that would go to the woman, a property abroad that would go to the man and additional financial arrangements tied to company holdings and dividends.
In the later agreement, signed after the company was sold, the businessman committed to transferring 57 million dollars net to his former partner.
The dispute centered on enforcement. The woman argued the rulings should be enforced through the enforcement system, while the businessman said they should be handled in family court. The judge accepted the businessman’s position on jurisdiction but rejected his attempt to block payment.
The businessman argued he should not be required to pay until the woman fulfills her obligations, including returning artwork, waiving claims to other properties and repaying an alleged loan. The court rejected that argument, ruling there was no clear legal basis to link the obligations.
Judge Shaked wrote that the agreements had been given the force of court judgments and that the proceedings concerned enforcement, not a re-examination of contractual rights. He said he found no clear, quantified obligation on the woman’s part that would justify delaying payment.
As a result, the court ordered immediate payment of the undisputed sums, including index-linked adjustments and annual interest on the dollar amount.
Attorneys not involved in the case said the ruling reinforced that family courts are the proper venue for enforcing complex asset division agreements.
Attorney Shmulik Kasuto, the businessman’s attorney, said the decision was flawed, arguing a party cannot enforce only parts of an agreement while ignoring its obligations. The former partner’s attorney, Lihi Eines welcomed the ruling, saying it affirmed her client’s rights and should help bring the broader dispute to an end.