Lawsuit against multi-million estate 17 years after breakup: Court ruling
17 years after the breakup, the Family Court dismissed a massive lawsuit against an estate. The District Court in Haifa overturned the decision, ruling that the question of the statute of limitations requires an in-depth factual investigation.
In 2022, a woman filed a lawsuit against the estate of her former partner, represented by attorney Avi Gefen, seeking recognition as a common-law spouse and a share of the multi-million estate and pension rights left behind. The couple lived together from 1982 to 2005, accumulating significant assets. According to the plaintiff, they had agreed that the realization of her rights to the property and the residential apartment would be deferred until the deceased retired. However, the partner passed away in January 2022 before reaching retirement age.
The deceased's family members sought to dismiss the lawsuit at the threshold, citing the statute of limitations and a 17-year delay, arguing that the deceased could no longer respond to the claims. The Family Court accepted this position and dismissed the case before hearing any evidence.
The woman appealed to the District Court in Haifa. Attorney Gefen argued that the statute of limitations issue is intertwined with the agreement between the partners: if the realization of rights was postponed until retirement, the limitation period did not begin until that date. The partner's death before retirement does not invalidate these rights but serves as the event that concludes them.
The panel of judges at the District Court in Haifa — Sari Jousi, Ofra Atias, and Nitzan Silman — accepted the appeal. The ruling stated that dismissing a lawsuit at the threshold is an extreme measure reserved only for clear-cut cases. The judges clarified that the existence of an agreement to postpone the realization of rights is a central factual issue essential to resolving the statute of limitations question.
The District Court ordered the dismissal to be overturned and returned the case to the Family Court to hear evidence and examine the claims on their merits. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must be given her day in court. The respondents were ordered to pay legal costs of 3,000 shekels.
"This is a precedent-setting and important ruling: when a lawsuit is filed for rights whose realization is postponed to a future date, it is not possible to block the plaintiff at the threshold due to the statute of limitations without factually clarifying what was agreed between the parties," stated attorney Avi Gefen.
