Published rulings

Background. After the mother breached a relocation agreement, we sued on the father’s behalf also the person who had guaranteed her obligations, her current husband’s father. The guarantor and the mother asked for summary dismissal. The guarantor argued he was not a “family member”, so the Family Court had no jurisdiction over him.

What we did. We argued that the guarantee was an integral part of the relocation agreement, that the guarantor had agreed in advance to the Family Court’s jurisdiction, and that joining him was needed to decide the whole dispute in one proceeding before one judge.

Outcome. The motions for summary dismissal were denied. Under section 6(f) of the Family Court Law, a non-family member may be joined where the dispute arises directly from an agreement concerning minors, and the case should not be split between courts. The guarantor sought leave to appeal from the District Court (FamLA 64013-12-24) and the Supreme Court (FamLA 82321-01-25); both were denied.

Background. A judgment ordered the children returned to Israel, and the mother did not comply. The court ordered Israeli passports issued for the children, and in summer 2025 the father brought his son back. The mother filed a Hague Convention claim, alleging abduction.

What we did. We represented the father and moved to dismiss in limine. We argued there is no wrongful removal when a parent carries out a final judgment, and that courts in Israel and the US had found the father to be the custodial parent.

Outcome. The claim was dismissed in limine. The court held that the Hague Convention protects children from abduction, not parents from the enforcement of judgments. The mother was ordered to pay ILS 20,000 in costs.

Background. A single dayan in a regional court ordered a lawyer to pay ILS 2,000 in personal costs to the State Treasury after she asked to postpone an evidentiary hearing following a difficult birth.

What we did. We represented the lawyer on appeal to the Great Rabbinical Court, together with Adv. Yosef Weizman.

Outcome. The appeal was allowed and the costs cancelled. By majority, a monetary order requires a panel of three dayanim. Costs are imposed on the party, not on counsel, save in exceptional cases, and not without prior warning.

Background. The regional Rabbinical Court, followed by the Great Rabbinical Court, barred a mother from sharing photos and videos of her daughter on social media without the father’s consent.

What we did. We petitioned the High Court for the mother, arguing that the ban gave the father a veto over any posting, with no basis in law.

Outcome. After the petition was filed, the regional court reconsidered and allowed posting as long as it causes no concrete harm to the child’s welfare and makes no commercial use of her image. The mother obtained what she sought and the petition was struck out.

Background. A relocation agreement with the force of a judgment allowed the mother to move with the children to the US, on terms meant to secure their ongoing contact with their father in Israel. Agreed damages of USD 50,000 were set for each material breach.

What we did. We sued on the father’s behalf to enforce the agreement and for the damages, proving four breaches: approving the agreement in the US three years late, shortening the children’s visit to Israel, not installing a video-call system, and breaching the father’s parenting time in the US.

Outcome. The court held all four breaches material, issued enforcement orders, and ordered the mother to pay ILS 680,000 in agreed damages and ILS 100,000 in costs.

Background. The mother, living abroad, filed two claims against the father: one to vary the relocation agreement, the other for ILS 1,002,000 in damages.

What we did. We asked that the mother post security for the father’s costs. The Family Court ordered ILS 90,000 in each claim, and she sought leave to appeal.

Outcome. The appeal was dismissed. The amount reflects the expected costs, and there was no certainty she would pay them. She was ordered to pay further costs to the father.

Background. The mother did not pay the amounts awarded against her, and the father opened an enforcement file. To secure her obligations under the agreement, her current husband’s father had signed a guarantee.

What we did. After the motions to dismiss were denied up to the Supreme Court, we conducted the evidentiary stage. The guarantor’s claims of nullity, misrepresentation and release were rejected.

Outcome. The guarantor was held liable for the full enforcement debt, ILS 857,717. He and the mother were held jointly and severally liable for further damages of USD 6,000, and he was ordered to pay ILS 100,000 in costs.

Background. A family living in the US since 2016 came to Israel with their five children, aged 3 to 10.5. The mother announced she would stay, and the couple divorced. About six weeks later the father filed a Hague Convention claim to return the children to the US.

What we did. We represented the mother, arguing that in negotiating the divorce agreement the father had agreed the children would stay in Israel, and that the claim was filed to gain leverage.

Outcome. The claim was dismissed. The court found the Convention’s consent and acquiescence exceptions applied, and that the father sought to use the Convention as a bargaining tool. He was ordered to pay costs.

Background. After the divorce the ex-husband sued our client for ILS 1,023,100, claiming the money he paid toward an apartment registered in her name was a loan or joint investment. A second claim sought ILS 71,644 for rent, bills and expenses.

What we did. We argued the money repaid his debt to her from the sale of two jointly owned apartments in 2015, not a loan, and that the payments he sought back were maintenance, which the Rabbinical Court had already refused to order returned.

Outcome. The first claim was dismissed in full, including the apartment money and car-use fees. Only ILS 9,140 of the second claim was allowed. The ex-husband was ordered to pay our client ILS 50,000 in costs and fees.

Background. The couple signed a separation-of-property agreement, approved by the court in 2018. After separating, our client sued to annul it, claiming the husband had concealed assets.

What we did. We pointed to a Jerusalem apartment the husband had concealed and that the agreement did not mention. He did not deny concealing it, and claimed it was a gift from his parents.

Outcome. The court held his claim was “admission and avoidance”, shifting the burden to him, which he did not meet. An asset not mentioned in the agreement was not waived. The apartment is included in the division and our client is entitled to half its value. The husband was ordered to pay ILS 40,000 in costs and fees.

Background. The divorce agreement set an agreed separation date of 1.7.2019. In enforcement proceedings, the Family Court ordered real estate valued at the date of the expert opinion and other assets at the separation date.

What we did. We sought leave to appeal for the husband, arguing that splitting the valuation dates alters a final judgment and shifts onto our client the fall in value of a property abroad and the local currency’s devaluation there.

Outcome. Leave was granted and the appeal allowed in part. The expert will give an opinion in two alternatives, one valuing the real estate at the separation date. The wife was ordered to pay ILS 5,000 in costs to our client.

Background. The husband’s sister won a land authority tender for a plot, on which a house was built where the couple lived. After separating, the wife sought a declaration that the house belonged to her and the husband equally, or compensation. The claim was dismissed and she appealed.

What we did. We represented the husband. Cross-examination showed she had no personal right to bid in the tender and did not know of the transfer agreement she relied on. The District Court relied on that cross-examination.

Outcome. The appeal was dismissed. She proved neither an agreement nor a trust, nor her compensation claim, and was ordered to pay ILS 7,500 in costs to each respondent.

What we did. We represented the husband.

Outcome. The Jerusalem Family Court dismissed a claim to annul a property agreement and ordered the claimant to pay ILS 50,000 in costs.

Background. The couple, living abroad, had been separated for about two years. The wife opened a divorce file in Israel and claimed maintenance, and an exit ban was issued against the husband. The regional court dismissed the maintenance claim.

What we did. We represented the husband in the wife’s appeal to the Great Rabbinical Court.

Outcome. The appeal was dismissed and the exit ban cancelled. The Rabbinical Court in Israel has no jurisdiction over a person who is neither an Israeli resident nor an Israeli citizen.

Background. Divorce agreements approved by the Rabbinical Court set two alternatives for supporting six children: ILS 12,000 a month plus all household and mortgage costs until the apartment was sold or transferred to the wife, and ILS 2,500 per child afterwards. The wife opened an enforcement file under the first.

What we did. We appealed the enforcement registrar’s decision for the father, arguing that once he had the lien on his rights in the apartment removed, the second alternative applied.

Outcome. The appeal was allowed in part. The second alternative applied between 9.8.2023 and 8.7.2024, and liability for that period was reduced. The father’s deposit was returned.

Background. Under the divorce agreement the parents shared equally the support and housing of their four children. The mother claimed ILS 21,772 a month for the children and interim housing support. The Family Court refused, and she sought leave to appeal.

What we did. We represented the father, arguing that the support in the agreement had been approved by the Rabbinical Court and did not disadvantage the children.

Outcome. Leave to appeal was denied. Where support is set by agreement, interim relief is given only in exceptional cases where it “cries out”, and the agreement did not disadvantage the children.

Background. A woman applied for a protection order against her husband, our client, alleging violence and threats. Pending the hearing, an interim order removing him from the home was given by consent.

What we did. We represented the husband at the evidentiary hearing, in which the applicant was cross-examined.

Outcome. The application was dismissed and the interim order cancelled. The court found contradictions in her account and no supporting evidence. She was ordered to pay costs to the State Treasury.

Background. In a Jerusalem residential building, developer companies bought the parking garage from the contractor and claimed it was a separate “unit” they owned.

What we did. We represented the building committee and the apartment owners, arguing the garage was common property and had not been lawfully excluded from it.

Outcome. The court held the garage is common property. Only the parking spaces and storerooms marked in the plans were lawfully excluded; the rest remains common property of all residents.

Background. A tenant renting three Jerusalem properties from a nonprofit was sued for eviction and payment. A mediation agreement with the force of a judgment sent the money claims to arbitration. After the award, the tenant sought to set it aside.

What we did. We represented the nonprofit and opposed setting the award aside.

Outcome. The court found no ground to set it aside, confirmed the award and the partial award fixing the rent debt, and ordered the tenant to pay ILS 10,000 in costs.

Background. Two neighbors went to a rabbi as arbitrator in a dispute over structural work our client built for the neighbor. The arbitrator ordered the neighbor to pay ILS 17,665, ILS 18,900 and USD 15,000. The neighbor sought to set the award aside, claiming no arbitration agreement had been signed.

What we did. We moved to confirm the award, arguing that at the end of the hearing the parties signed a document summarizing the arbitrator’s conclusions, which meets the writing requirement.

Outcome. The motion to set aside was dismissed and the award confirmed. The neighbor was ordered to pay ILS 5,000 in costs and fees.

Background. Our client and his wife bought from one brother his share in an inherited apartment, and the rights were registered in their names. The other two brothers claimed a right of first refusal under Jewish law, and a beit din ruled that our client must sell them the share.

What we did. We moved to set the awards aside and opposed the brothers’ motion to confirm them.

Outcome. The awards were set aside. They infringed the registered rights of our client’s wife, who was not a party to the arbitration, and could not be carried out.

Background. In a dispute over joint real-estate business, the parties agreed, with the force of a judgment, that the arbitration would continue before a sole arbitrator. The other side then applied to remove him.

What we did. We represented the respondent and opposed the application.

Outcome. The application was dismissed. No ground for disqualification was found, and an attempt to amend the application at the end of the hearing was also rejected. The applicants were ordered to pay ILS 20,000 in costs to our client.