The Family Court in Be’er Sheva ruled that a woman who owns 80% of the rights in a shared apartment cannot automatically buy her ex-husband’s share when the property is being sold in a forced dissolution of co-ownership. The Court explained that the right of first refusal applies only when a sale is voluntary, not in a compulsory sale meant to end the partnership. Both spouses may still participate in the public bidding and try to buy the home like any other buyer. The Court also ordered the ex-husband to transfer to the woman her share of the rental income he had collected.
Edited by Adv. Karin Yitzhaki
In this legal summary, we review a decision of the Family Court in Be’er Sheva, which rejected the request of a woman who holds the majority of the rights in the parties’ shared apartment to purchase her former spouse’s share in the property. The Court held that the woman does not have a right of first refusal to purchase the apartment when the dissolution of co-ownership is effected by a forced sale through a bidding process (a public sale to the highest bidder).
Circumstances of the case:
Former spouses co-owned an apartment in which the woman’s share was 80% (in accordance with her financial investment), and the man’s share was 20%. After separation, the wife left the apartment together with the parties’ minor children and moved to a shelter for women who are victims of domestic violence, due to the ex-husband’s violence and dangerousness. The man remained in the apartment and later moved to live in the United States. From there, he rented the jointly owned apartment and retained all rental income himself, without any coordination with or notice to his ex-wife.
The woman petitioned the Court to grant her a right of first refusal to purchase her ex-husband’s share in the apartment and, thereafter, to order the dissolution of co-ownership. In her claim, she argued that her request to purchase his share in the apartment should be accepted in light of the special circumstances of the case, based on the following considerations: the ex-husband, who holds dual citizenship, left for the United States in the midst of the legal proceedings and has no interest in the apartment; he did not file a defense in the proceedings and did not appear at the hearings; the woman holds the vast majority of the rights in the apartment; she does not own any other apartment; and she alone bears responsibility for raising the parties’ minor children, while her ex-husband has left the country. The woman also sought an order requiring him to pay usage fees for his residence in the apartment after she was forced to move to the shelter, as well as for the rental income he collected from the apartment.
The legal question: Can one spouse be granted a right of first refusal to purchase the other spouse’s share when it concerns a forced dissolution of co-ownership in an apartment that cannot be physically divided in kind?
The Court’s Decision
The ex-wife’s request was partly denied. The Court explained that when a shared property is being sold through a forced dissolution of co-ownership, neither partner gets an automatic right to buy the other’s share. That right—called a right of first refusal—exists only when one partner chooses to sell their share voluntarily. Its purpose is to keep outsiders from entering property that has a family connection. In a forced sale meant to end the partnership, this right simply does not apply.
To give each spouse a fair chance to buy the apartment, the Court said they can both take part in the public bidding. If either spouse offers the same amount or more than outside buyers, they can buy the home. This gives them a practical opportunity to buy the property, even though they don’t have an automatic right of first refusal.
The Court also ordered that the property be sold through a receiver (a court-appointed trustee), who will handle the sale on the open market to the highest bidder, while allowing both spouses to place bids themselves. In addition, the Court accepted the ex-wife’s claim and ruled that the ex-husband must pay her 80% of the rental income he had collected from the apartment.
Author’s Note
The ruling highlights a difficult truth: even when one spouse owns most of the apartment, and even when personal factors like the children’s well-being or the parties’ behavior are important, a forced dissolution of co-ownership must follow the law. The law is built on principles of equality and the protection of property rights. This means no one can be forced to sell their share except through an open-market sale. The outcome may feel unfair or counterintuitive, but it protects each person’s property rights and ensures the co-ownership is ended in a way that balances both sides’ interests.
(FamC (Be’er Sheva) 42480-06-21 B.K. v. N.K.)
Gindi Caspi & Co. is one of Israel’s most prominent law firms in real estate, planning and zoning, and urban renewal. With decades of extensive experience handling complex and large-scale real estate transactions, the firm is consistently ranked among the top-tier firms in these fields by all major rating companies. Notably, the international LEGAL 500 recognized Gindi Caspi & Co. as a Leader in real estate, planning, and zoning and highlighted Adv. Ziv Caspi as a Leading Individual in Israeli law. The firm has also received numerous accolades, including ranking among the top real estate law firms (Dun’stars) in planning, zoning, and urban renewal. It was honored as a “pillar and cornerstone in fulfilling the nation’s vision for building and settling the land.” For five consecutive years, the firm has been ranked first in Israel in the field of urban renewal.
For inquiries, contact [email protected].
