The husband sought to enforce a “home peace agreement or divorce” that was signed and approved by the court, but the wife claimed that the agreement was forced on her and that information about the extent of the assets was concealed from her when it was signed.
The court accepted the request and annulled the agreement due to defects in its conclusion. A person who entered into an agreement due to a mistake made by the other party and who, without the mistake, would not have entered into the contract is entitled to annul the contract. A person who enters into an agreement while taking advantage of his distress, mental or physical weakness or inexperience by the other party and the terms of the contract are unreasonably worse than usual is considered to have entered into the agreement as a result of oppression and is also entitled to annul the agreement. A financial or divorce agreement is approved only after the court is convinced that it is an agreement made out of the free will of the parties and that they understand the implications of the agreement, but approval does not prevent one of the parties from later claiming a defect in its conclusion. Here, the husband took advantage of the wife who did not work and was financially and emotionally dependent on him and signed the agreement without reporting his real assets and in effect deprived her of her rights in an extreme manner. Therefore, although the agreement was approved in court, it is clear that the woman did not have free will and that she did not understand the implications of the agreement, and therefore it is void due to deception and oppression.
Published in Legal Channel 433 19.02.2025 Afik & Co.
To read the ruling of the Court of Appeals (Rishlach) 13518-03-23 A. 20 v. K. 20
