Lawyers
Publicly known
As in Israel, the separation of religion and state is a contentious issue and the Knesset finds it difficultto establish by law civil marriages between residents of the state (for political, religious, etc.) there is no alternative but to establish THE KNOWN IN THE PUBLIC institution.
מאת עו״ד ונוטריון יגאל מור
דיוק בייעוץ המשפטי. מצויינות בליווי המשפטי.
This is a legal concept that describes a couple who share the same life together as a married couple without being married. In Israel, the formation of the Publicly Known Institution can be attributed to section 3 of the Rabbinical Court Jurisdiction Law, 1953, which stipulates that marriages and divorces between Jews should follow Torah law. Thus, in order to get married or divorced, a couple must go through a rabbinical court.
Thus, in order to get married or divorced, a couple must go through rabbinical court.
The term “publicly known” was first used by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1948 to describe a woman/man who lived with their partner without being married to him. As time went on, the man was recognized as “publicly known as her husband”, thus perfecting the term.
According to Supreme Court judge Zvi Branson, public figures possess the following characteristics: In this case, two elements are involved: married life as husband and wife, as well as the running of a joint household. This first element consists of an intimate relationship between a husband and wife based on the same affection and love, devotion and loyalty that ties them together. In this way, this relationship differs from the life of concubines, for example, where the man maintains a lover or a friend primarily to achieve sexual satisfaction in the bosom of a woman, as well as providing him with a place of refuge from an oppressive marriage and an unsuccessful life; Likewise, the concubine - with her, the material condition and social status of the man who serves as her patron and reciprocator of kindness usually occupy a prominent position, and she reciprocates by giving him physical favors in return. The second element relates to managing a shared household. לא סתם משק בית משותף מתוך צורך אישי, נוחות, כדאיות כספית או סידור ענייני, אלא כפועל יוצא טבעי Not just a shared household that is created for personal convenience, financial viability, or business purposes, but as a natural consequence of joint family life, such as when a husband and wife adhere to each other in a bond of life destiny and the wife acts as the head of the household. מחיי המשפחה המשותפים, כנהוג וכמקובל בין בעל ואשה הדבקים אחד בשני בקשר של גורל חיים והאשה משמשת לו עקרת בית. In contrast, such a joint household differs from employing a maid or a nanny even when the employer has sex with her. In such a situation, the woman may still do housework and look after the man's affairs, but this is part of a business arrangement through which she receives a portion of the remuneration and alimony at the residence of her employer.
There was a discussion before the Supreme Court regarding whether a couple who is living together as a married couple but is not married maintains a conjugal relationship that establishes rights and obligations for third parties. The case is Nicole Lindorn vs. Karnit, RA 200/97 According to the ruling, a spouse with an intimate relationship, who lives in a shared household, may be considered a known person to the public. It is actually these two facts that define a person as being public knowledge of another individual.
A later ruling strengthened the status of a publicly known institution. Bar Nehor v. Austerlich High Court ruled that the law of inheritance does not allow conditional maintenance on estates, thus, even if the couple signed an agreement stating that they are not known to the public, it is not valid if they stand in the factual conditions of being publicly known.
According to ABD 59/03 Gabriela Saban vs. Social Security InstituteAs Vice President Elisheva Barak stated, even though the couple did not live together in the same residence, all factors must be taken into consideration in order to recognize the couple as known to the public, thus opening the door for the recognition of non-conventional relationships in order to qualify for benefits from the National Insurance Institute.
418-12-2008 Ltd. Courts have ruled that a conjugal partnership is a partnership in the factual sense between spouses who have entered into a partnership agreement between them. By handshake or in writing,The issue is the desire for binding sharing of marriage and divorce to their assets. Therefore, the court abandons the factual test and moves to an agreement test, through which it is necessary to examine whether the couple intended to enter into a binding relationship with third parties as a result of moving into a shared residence.
In case 028593/06, the Family Court denied a man’s request to reject outright a maintenance claim filed by a woman against him on the basis that she was a former publicly known. As a result, the court determined that, even if no contract was signed between the spouses, cohabitation was in the scope of a “prison agreement” (referring to an implied agreement implied by the relationship between the parties, even if no contract is signed) and, as a result, the court ruled:
There is no legislation that regulates “publicly known” rights, so the set of rights and obligations between “publicly known” must be addressed at the contractual level. In this case, there is no express agreement of “common life” between the plaintiff and defendant. As a result, it is necessary to obtain information from the claimant regarding the conduct of their relationshipThere is something called a “prison agreement” that is derived both from an agreement between the parties and from the freedom of contract recognized by general law… Currently, the relationship between spouses, including same-sex couples, seems to establish a system of consent and commitment. Thus, it is the cohabitation that creates an agreement and grounds for spousal maintenance under contractual law, namely the duty not to neglect the spouse.
The rule of sharing
In accordance with the rule of sharing, spouses agree that from the moment they marry, everything they accumulate during their marriage will be shared in accordance with their joint effort and a harmonious lifestyle.
In RA 8791/00 Shalom against Twinco, Judge Barak extends the applicability of the rule of sharing, stating that the spouses who maintain a normal lifestyle and joint effort are entitled to it, and the accumulated property is jointly owned, even when registered under one spouse or in his possession. Nevertheless, this presumption based on the consent of the spouses can be rebutted. The burden of proof rests with the individual claiming its nonexistence.
As a result of the sharing rule, each spouse has a quasi-proprietary right to receive half of the assets in kind. A person can claim this right at any given moment. It is the date of the break in the relationship between the spouses that terminates the presumption of sharing.
Financial agreement between publicly known
Couples recognized by the Social Security Institute as publicly known are treated the same way as married couples. This is one of the key expressions of recognition by the institution. This means that all the rights and obligations which the National Insurance Institute grants and imposes on married couples also apply to couples who are known to the public.
Generally speaking, inheritance laws state that in the absence of a detailed will, a person’s property will be divided equally between the testator’s spouse and the testator’s direct descendants. The spouse will receive half, and the children will receive the remaining half. When a couple divorces, the property will be divided according to the law on property relations. In accordance with the law, as long as there is a financial agreement, then the property will be divided according to the terms of the agreement that the couple made before they got married, and if no such agreement exists, then the property will be divided in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Relations Law.
At all stages of the relationship (during the relationship and after the breakup of the relationship), it is correct to draw up a financial agreement between publicly known to regulate their financial relations.
Couples known to the public enter into contractual agreements in a similar manner to married couples, however, since the sharing regime that applies to publicly known is the rule of sharing, the Law of Financial Relations does not apply. Rather, a financial agreement between publicly known couple And it must be approved by the family court.
It is extremely important to prepare a financial agreement, particularly between publicly known couples, as it assures the status of the parties and the future of their children and heirs in circumstances where the relationship between spouses is not supported by the state in the same way as married couples are supported. An agreement of this type can also prove beneficial to third parties (e.g. creditors) or state agencies (National Insurance/Tax Authority, etc.).
Adv. Mor & Co.’s family law department has considerable experience drafting financial agreements for publicly known couples. In addition, it has experience in lawsuits related to proving public status and protecting publicly known couples’ rights.
Sensitivity and personal legal accompaniment while adhering to professionalism, are the values
