When a WhatsApp message is worth a penthouse: Judges weigh digital vs. written promises
A torn New Year’s Eve note failed to secure millions, but a clear WhatsApp message from the ex-partner was ruled legally binding, transferring ownership of a penthouse apartment.
A WhatsApp message and a note from New Year's Eve have determined the fate of millions in a recent court ruling. The case involved a couple who lived as common-law spouses for about 18 years, had children, led a family life, and even married in an alternative ceremony over 20 years ago. When the woman met the man, he owned a company, had made a successful exit, and accumulated assets including apartments and cash. The couple did not sign a financial agreement. The woman claimed the man had told her the property was joint, while the man asserted there was an agreement that all assets were his alone.
At the center of the dispute was a “New Year’s Eve note,” written roughly a year before the couple separated on New Year’s Eve 2018. In her handwriting, it stated: “We undertake that all property we have accumulated is 100% common to both of us, even if it is registered in the name of only one of us.” The woman did not sign the note; the man did. He later claimed he had signed it while drunk and under pressure, and physically tore it up upon discovering it later. The woman insisted he was not intoxicated. She also testified that at the time, she had ended an affair and believed she could restore the relationship, arguing that the infidelity was irrelevant to the property dispute.
The case reached the District Court after the man appealed a Family Court ruling, which had found a presumption of joint ownership of assets registered solely in his name and granted the woman half of them, except for one asset. The District Court, however, sided with the man, ruling that the note represented a “commitment to a gift” that he was entitled to revoke. The court concluded there was no general joint ownership of his property.
Judge Naftali Shilo, writing for the panel that included Justices Einat Ravid and Yehezkel Eliyahu, ruled that the couple had no joint property, not even a shared bank account. On the New Year’s Eve note, he wrote:
"A note in which there is a commitment by the man to share assets cannot be relied upon when, at the time of signing, the woman concealed from him that she was already in another relationship with his best friend. She misled him, presenting a false representation. It is reasonable to assume the man would not have signed the note had he known the truth. He withdrew his offer a few days later by tearing up the note, which constitutes lawful revocation of a gift."
But the court highlighted a pivotal WhatsApp message. The man sent the woman a message explicitly stating that the penthouse apartment “will be registered as your property.” Judges ruled this communication was clear, specific, and demonstrated a full intention to transfer ownership. The court ordered that the man must transfer the penthouse apartment free of debt, liens, or third-party claims. The ruling noted:
"This message was sent after the parties had separated, showing the man understood it was not acceptable for the woman to leave with nothing after many years together."
Ultimately, the District Court accepted the man’s appeal in full. The woman did not prove entitlement to half of the man’s property, but she will receive the penthouse apartment. The court also ruled that a one-million-shekel sum she received from her father remains solely hers.
Attorney Dalit Yaniv-Messer, a family law expert, said: “The ruling illustrates the legal weight of written or digital promises. A note signed by a spouse may represent a gift and can be revoked, while a clear WhatsApp message can constitute a binding obligation. To prevent disputes, couples should draw up prenuptial or cohabitation agreements.”
The woman’s attorney, Gil Bar-Zohar, commented: “The court ultimately delivered justice, granting my client property worth millions. The note issue was secondary, but this ruling is a legal and moral victory.”
The man’s lawyer, Orit Dror-Harel, added: “My client won the appeal and the Family Court’s ruling was overturned.”
