$260,000 Porsche at heart of legal fight over marriage and money
Court sides with wife after dispute over whether car was gift or company asset.
A luxury Porsche worth about NIS 800,000 (approximately $260,000) has become the focal point of a legal dispute between a couple from one of Israel’s wealthiest and most prominent families.
The case, heard in the Haifa District Court, centers on ownership of the vehicle, which the woman claims was taken from her after she was dismissed from a company owned by her husband. The couple, married for more than 30 years and now embroiled in a broader dispute over significant assets, clashed over whether the car was a personal gift or a company-owned vehicle.
According to the woman, who is represented by attorney Raz Mangel, the Porsche was given to her as a birthday gift and had been used exclusively by her for years. The husband, a businessman, argued that the vehicle belonged to his company and was provided to her solely as a company car due to her status as an employee.
In December 2025, the Family Court ordered that the vehicle be returned to the woman. The husband appealed the decision, but the District Court rejected the appeal this week, effectively upholding the original ruling and confirming that the car must be returned to her.
Court filings show that for years, the woman was formally registered as an employee of her husband’s company and received pay slips. She was later summoned to a hearing and dismissed. In November 2025, the vehicle was taken for routine maintenance by the company’s vehicle officer, after which, according to the woman, her husband instructed that it not be returned.
The woman argued that the car was her personal property, used exclusively by her, and that it was taken unilaterally following the breakdown of the relationship. The husband maintained that the vehicle had always been owned by the company and was assigned to her only in her capacity as an employee.
The woman filed an urgent motion for a temporary injunction, which the Family Court granted. The court found prima facie evidence that the vehicle had originally been given as a birthday gift.
In his appeal, the husband argued that any right the woman had to the car ended with the termination of her employment and that the company had purchased and fully paid for the vehicle. The woman countered that her employment status had been largely formal and that she had never actively worked for the company. She also argued that taking the car restricted her freedom of movement, particularly as she currently lacks the financial means to purchase another vehicle while her husband controls the family’s resources.
The District Court rejected the appeal. Judge Sari Jayoussi noted that although the vehicle appeared in company records and was reflected in the woman’s salary, the blurred lines between the company’s management, entirely controlled by the husband, and the couple’s private life could not be ignored.
The court further determined that the dispute does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, emphasizing that this is not a matter of employment relations but rather a marital dispute properly handled by the Family Court.
Attorney Raz Mangel welcomed the ruling, stating that the court had fully accepted his client’s position and ordered the immediate return of the vehicle, along with legal costs. Attorney Amos Sadika, representing the husband, declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of the proceedings.
