none

A Court Has Just Ruled About Money Spent During a Relationship. Love or Loan?

A man recently demanded his date of three months return the money he spent on her. He went with the claim to court.

The Magistrate’s Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, recently received a suit filed by a man against his female partner of three months. The man demanded that she return the money he “spent” on her during their short relationship. Judge Yair Hasdiel rejected the woman’s claims who said the money he spent was gifts and not a loan. The judge ordered her to return NIS 52,000 (14,500 US$) to the plaintiff.

During their short relationship, the man paid for a trip to Italy and paid for part of the woman’s son’s wedding. In the lawsuit, he claimed that the money was given to her as a loan.

On the other hand, the former girlfriend insisted that she had an independent financial ability and that the plaintiff had forced her to take the money as a sign of his love and the hope that she would marry him.

The man told the judge that the expressions of love that he used when giving the money were part of his personal style. He saw the relationship as minor and non-binding. He certainly did not intend to give the woman tens of thousands of Shekels as a gift.

Judge Yair Hasdiel criticized the couple who even came to the court with the dispute. He noted that “the legal cracking of the riddle is not good for the sides and is not good for the trial.” His words came in light of the nature of the conflict – which deals with human and emotional relations.

However, since the couple decided to end it in court, he noted that the case would be examined in accordance with the ‘gifts law’, which states that the burden of proving whether it’s a gift or not, rests with the defendant.

After examining the evidence in the case, Judge Hasdiel ruled that she did not convince the court that these were gifts. He found that in her version there were significant difficulties, such as the contradiction between her claim regarding her strong economic ability and her admission that she could not accept a mortgage following a creditor arrangement.

In addition, the judge was impressed that the relationship between the parties was short and lacked the attributes of sharing, commitment and mutual concern for the economic well-being and that the plaintiff’s version was more complete and convincing than the woman’s.

Judge Hasdiel, therefore, accepted the Plaintiff’s claim that the funds were given as a loan and now the woman must return them. Therefore, the claim was received in full, and aside from the amount of the loan, the defendant was also required to pay court fees and attorney fees of NIS 13,000 (3650 US$)