Family8/6/2026

Supreme Court Considered Whether a Cohabitation Agreement Remains Valid After Marriage

Two partners living as a de facto couple sought advance approval of a unified agreement governing their financial relations, which would remain in effect after a possible marriage. The Israeli Supreme Court considered the issue one of principle and granted leave to hear the appeal on the merits, but the available excerpt from the decision does not include the Court’s final conclusion.

Key facts

•Case No. 48399-09-24
•The Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem
•Decision dated 23.3.2026
•Panel: Daphne Barak-Erez, David Mintz, Yehiel Kasher
•Section 2 of the Spouses (Property Relations) Law, 5733–1973

What the Partners Requested

A man and a woman, whose names were not disclosed, were living as a de facto couple and jointly applied to the Family Court for approval of an agreement. They sought to state expressly that the financial arrangement they had established would remain in effect if they later married. There was no actual dispute between the parties, as their positions regarding approval of the agreement were identical.

Why the Case Reached the Supreme Court

The lower courts held that the agreement’s validity could not be extended in advance to cover the period following marriage. This raised the question of whether a decision to marry would require renewed consent from both parties, a new agreement, and its reapproval. The Supreme Court noted that Family Courts and District Courts had previously issued conflicting rulings on this issue.

The Issue Considered by the Court

The Court had to determine whether Israeli law allows a de facto couple to enter into a single prospective agreement that applies both to the period of cohabitation without marriage and to the period following registration of the marriage. Given the issue’s principled nature, the Court granted leave to appeal and proceeded to consider the appeal on the merits. The final outcome of the appeal does not appear in the available excerpt from the source.

Legal Basis

The Court relied on Section 2 of the Spouses (Property Relations) Law, 5733–1973. Under that provision, a financial agreement and any amendment to it require approval by the Family Court or the competent religious court; approval is granted only after verifying that the parties consented freely and understood the document’s meaning and consequences. For an agreement made before or at the time of marriage, judicial approval may be replaced by authentication by the marriage registrar. The Family Court Law, 5755–1995, was also mentioned.

What this means for you

The issue has practical significance for de facto couples, because its resolution determines whether a single financial agreement approved in advance is sufficient upon a later marriage, or whether the document must be redrafted and approved again. Because the available text ends before the Supreme Court’s final conclusion, it cannot be relied upon to state definitively what rule was ultimately established.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings