A WhatsApp message and a New Year’s Eve note turned out to be worth millions: A new court ruling shows how a single WhatsApp text and a handwritten note from New Year’s Eve can determine the fate of real estate and assets worth millions of shekels.
The ruling concerned a couple who lived as common-law partners for about 18 years, had children together, ran a family life and even married in an alternative wedding ceremony more than 20 years ago. When the woman met the man, he owned a company that later made a lucrative exit, and he now holds assets including apartments and substantial funds. The couple never signed a prenuptial or financial agreement. The woman claimed the man told her their property was shared, while the man argued there was an understanding between them that there would be no sharing of assets.
At the heart of the dispute was a New Year’s Eve note which, according to the ruling, was written about a year before the couple separated, on New Year’s Eve 2018. In the note, handwritten by the woman, it was stated: “We commit that all property we have accumulated is shared between the two of us 100%, even if it is registered in the name of only one of us.” The woman did not sign the note, while the man did.
The man, represented by attorney Orit Dror-Harel, later claimed he signed the note while intoxicated and under pressure and that he physically tore it up when he later found it. The woman, represented by attorney Gil Bar-Zohar, argued that he was not drunk. During the trial, the woman said that at the time the note was written she had ended an extramarital affair and genuinely believed she could repair her relationship with her then-partner, adding that infidelity was irrelevant to the property issue.
'Intimate relationship with his close friend'
The case reached the district court after the man appealed a ruling by the family court, which had determined that, due to the New Year’s Eve note, a presumption of shared property applied to assets registered solely in the man’s name and that the woman, as his common-law partner, was entitled to half of them, with the exception of the proceeds from one property.
The district court disagreed, overturned the family court’s decision and accepted the man’s argument regarding the note, ruling that it constituted a “commitment to give a gift,” from which the man was entitled to withdraw. As a result, the general sharing of his property was canceled.
Judge Naftali Shilo, who wrote the main opinion joined by Judges Einat Ravid and Yehezkel Eliahu, ruled that the parties had no shared property at all, not even a single joint bank account. Regarding the note signed by the man on New Year’s Eve, the judge wrote that “it is not possible to rely on a note containing a commitment by the man to share assets when, at the same time he was asked to sign the commitment, the woman concealed from him the factual situation that she was already conducting another relationship with his close friend.
“In practice, the woman misled the man and presented him with a false representation when she had him sign the note. That is, in this case, the woman had no rights to the man’s assets due to the regime of property separation that prevailed between the parties, and the note, which was signed while the man was misled, could not serve as a basis for a valid commitment to share his assets with the woman, since it stands to reason that the man would not have signed the note had he known the true state of affairs,” the judge ruled.
He added that “in this case, the man withdrew from the gift a few days after he signed it when he tore it up, and his withdrawal was lawful. In addition, the woman’s conduct, in maintaining an intimate relationship with his friend without the man’s knowledge, can be viewed as reprehensible behavior that entitles the man to withdraw from the gift and, as stated, tearing up the note is tantamount to withdrawing from giving the gift.”
'The penthouse will be registered in your name'
The unexpected twist came from the popular messaging app WhatsApp. It emerged that the man sent the woman a WhatsApp message explicitly stating that the penthouse apartment “will be registered in your name.” The judges ruled that, unlike the general New Year’s Eve note, the WhatsApp message was specific and clear and demonstrated full intent to transfer the property to her. Accordingly, it was determined that the man must transfer ownership of the penthouse apartment to the woman, free of any debt, lien or third-party rights.
In this context, the judge noted that “this text message was sent to the woman after the parties had already separated, which shows that the man understood that it was not possible to allow a situation in which the woman would leave with nothing after many years of partnership.”
Ultimately, the district court ruled that the man’s appeal should largely be accepted and that the woman failed to meet the burden of proving that, as a common-law partner, she was entitled to half of all the man’s property. At the same time, it was ruled that ownership of the penthouse apartment would be transferred to the woman. In addition, given the conclusion that the woman did not prove there was an agreement to share assets, the full sum of one million shekels that she received from her father belongs solely to her.
Attorney Orit Dror HarelPhoto: Ronen MahlavAttorney Dalit Yaniv, a family law expert who did not represent either party, said the ruling shows “the need to be cautious with promises that partners casually make to one another, especially when they are made in writing, as they carry legal significance. The court ruled that the note signed by the partner does not constitute proof of an agreement between the parties regarding the sharing of property and is, at most, a commitment to give a gift, which can be withdrawn. By contrast, the WhatsApp message he sent to the woman was recognized as his commitment to transfer ownership of the penthouse apartment to her, free of any debt, lien or third-party right. To prevent such cases from recurring, the only way to ensure property rights and avoid legal disputes is to draw up a financial agreement.”
Attorney Gil Bar-Zohar, the woman’s lawyer, said in response: “I welcome the district court’s ruling, which in the final analysis did justice with the woman and determined that she is entitled to assets worth millions that the man tried to deny her. It should be noted that there is an error in the ruling regarding the note, since the family court made a factual finding that the man himself wrote the note in his own handwriting and signed it, and that it was not written by the woman. This undermines the man’s claim that he was ‘made to sign’ the note while drunk. In any event, this is a just victory, legally and morally, for the client.”
Attorney Orit Dror Harel, who represents the man, said in response: “My client prevailed on appeal in the district court, and the family court’s ruling was overturned.”