Two partners lived together for some twenty years, raised children and separated. After the separation, the man sent the woman a short WhatsApp message saying that the penthouse apartment "will be registered in your name." The District Court treated the message as a binding promise and ordered him to transfer the apartment free of any debt or lien. The Supreme Court reversed. As Lital Dubrovitzky reported on ynet on November 5, 2026, Justice Yael Willner held that even if the message contained a promise to give a gift, the man was entitled to withdraw from it.
The ruling brings back to the fore a question that occupies many families, penthouse or not: what is a promise to give property as a gift worth, and what is it worth when it is typed in a hasty message on a phone? The answer lies in the Gift Law, 5728-1968, a short statute of eight sections that draws a sharp line between a gift already given and a promise to give a gift in the future. That distinction, more than any other detail of the case, is what decided it.
The penthouse case: a note, a text message and three courts
The dispute began in the Family Court. The woman, a common-law partner (yedua batzibur), claimed half of the assets accumulated in her partner's name; he had become wealthy after an exit. She relied mainly on a note written in 2018, on New Year's Eve, stating that all the property they had accumulated was jointly owned. The Family Court accepted her position and found that the presumption of joint ownership (hazakat hashituf) applied.
The Tel Aviv District Court saw things differently. In a February 2026 judgment, reported by Lital Dubrovitzky in Calcalist, the panel, in an opinion written by Judge Naftali Shilo, held that the couple had kept their property separate. The note could not be relied on, because when it was signed the woman had concealed a romantic relationship with another man, and the man, who tore up the note, was regarded as having lawfully withdrawn from a promise to give a gift. On the penthouse, however, the panel reached the opposite conclusion: the 2020 text message, sent after the separation, was in its view specific and clear, and showed a full and firm intent to transfer the property.
In the Supreme Court, Justice Willner, with Justices David Mintz and Gila Canfy-Steinitz concurring, granted the man leave to appeal in a "third round." That is an exceptional step, and it was justified by a miscarriage of justice: the woman never claimed that the penthouse had been promised to her as a gift, so the man could not defend himself against that claim. As Itamar Levin reported on Bizportal, the court held that even if this was a valid undertaking, "and it is very doubtful that it is," it was a promise to give a gift from which the man had lawfully withdrawn, because the woman neither claimed nor proved that she had changed her position in reliance on it.
Beyond the substantive law, the ruling also carries a procedural lesson. The District Court ordered the man to transfer the penthouse on the basis of a claim the woman had not raised in her pleadings, and the Supreme Court saw this as an infringement of his ability to defend himself. A party seeking an asset must base the claim on a defined legal cause of action and set out the facts on which it rests, because a court is not supposed to build an argument for one side that was never made and surprise the other side with it.
A completed gift versus a promise to give a gift
Section 1 of the Gift Law defines a gift as "the transfer of property without consideration," and section 2 provides that a gift is completed when the giver transfers the subject of the gift to the recipient, with both agreeing that it is given as a gift. Section 6 adds that ownership of the gift passes to the recipient when it is delivered into his hands. With an apartment the picture is more complex: under section 7 of the Land Law, 5729-1969, a real estate transaction is completed by registration, and a transaction not completed by registration is regarded as an undertaking to make a transaction.
This test has considerable practical significance. Transferring an apartment as a gift is done like any other real estate transaction, and the Land Registry extract (nesach tabu) shows whether it has been completed. Parents who signed a transfer of an apartment to their son, with the transaction registered, have completed a gift. Parents who promised, even in writing, that the apartment would pass to him one day are still at the stage of a promise. At that stage the special rules of section 5 of the Gift Law apply, and they are what decided the penthouse case.
The New Year's Eve note also teaches something about the nature of such a promise. The District Court, as noted, regarded it as a promise to give a gift and held that the man lawfully withdrew from it when he tore it up. The law does not prescribe any particular form of withdrawal, and in this case a clear act by the giver was enough. What matters is whether the withdrawal came before the recipient changed position in reliance on the promise.
A promise to give a gift and the writing requirement
Section 5(a) of the Gift Law opens with an express formal requirement:
A promise to give a gift in the future requires a written document.
When the gift is an apartment, a further requirement is added: under section 8 of the Land Law, an undertaking to make a real estate transaction requires a written document. As early as 1996, in C.A. 986/93 Klemer v. Guy, the Supreme Court held that the writing requirement "is substantive, and not merely evidentiary," meaning that without a writing there is no undertaking. The principle of good faith can overcome the absence of a writing only in special and exceptional cases.
Is a WhatsApp message a "written document"? In the penthouse case the Supreme Court did not need to decide, because it held that even if the promise was valid, the man had withdrawn from it. Past experience shows that the question turns not on the form of the message but on its content. In a judgment of the Ashdod Family Court, reported on ynet on January 23, 2023, a widow and her late husband's children negotiated the sale of their shares in an apartment through emails and WhatsApp messages. Judge Ariel Maman held that the understandings did not satisfy the writing requirement of the Land Law, because they did not show the children's firm intent to be bound and did not include all the essential terms.
Revoking a promise to give a gift: how long can you change your mind
This is the heart of the Gift Law. Section 5(b) provides that as long as the recipient has not changed his position in reliance on the promise, the giver may withdraw from it, unless he has waived this right in writing. It follows that even a written and signed promise is not the end of the matter. The legislature recognized that a gift, unlike a sale, does not rest on consideration, and therefore left the giver room to change his mind until the promise has become a foundation on which the recipient has built his plans.
The exception at the end of the section is not a technicality. A giver who wants the promise to truly bind him, for example a parent who undertakes to transfer an apartment to his daughter so that she can plan her future, can waive the right of withdrawal in writing. Such a waiver closes the door that section 5(b) opens, and turns the promise from a statement of intent into a real commitment. Without such a waiver, even a written and signed promise remains, within the limits of the law, revocable.
Section 5(c) adds two grounds for withdrawal available to the giver in addition to section 5(b): disgraceful conduct by the recipient toward the giver or a member of his family, and a significant deterioration in the giver's financial situation. These are narrow grounds, requiring serious misconduct or a real change in circumstances, but they express the same basic idea: a person who gives without consideration should not remain bound by the promise at any cost.
Change of position in reliance: the burden is on the recipient
Suppose a daughter received a signed letter from her father undertaking to transfer an apartment to her within a year, and in reliance on the letter she sold her own apartment and took out a loan to renovate the promised one. In that situation she has a real argument that her father may no longer withdraw. The reliance must be genuine and connected to the promise, and the person relying on it must both plead it and prove it. In the penthouse case, the woman failed on exactly this point: she did not claim, let alone prove, that she had changed her position because of the text message.
Firm intent and definiteness: why a terse text message is not enough
Justice Willner added, beyond what was necessary for the decision, remarks whose significance reaches beyond the case. According to the reports, she held that the message did not express the required firm intent (gmirut da'at), because it was a terse message lacking information that might show the seriousness of the sender's intentions. She also pointed to significant difficulties with the definiteness (mesuyamut) of the promise, among other things because of loans and other obligations encumbering the property.
Firm intent and definiteness are the cornerstones of contract law. The first asks whether the writer truly meant to bind himself, or merely expressed a wish or an emotional gesture in a charged moment. The second asks whether the undertaking is detailed enough for a court to enforce it: which property, when and on what terms, and who bears the debts and the mortgage on it. A single sentence, sent after a separation and without any further detail, will struggle to pass both tests at once.
This does not mean that written messages carry no weight. In family and business disputes they often serve as key evidence of the parties' intentions and of the understandings they reached. But evidence of intent is not necessarily an enforceable undertaking, and the distinction between the two lies at the center of the disagreement between the District Court and the Supreme Court in this case.
The gap between the courts is instructive. The District Court read the message and saw a clear decision, while the Supreme Court saw in it, at most, a promise that could be withdrawn. When the same words receive such opposite readings, it is clear how risky it is to entrust a matter worth millions to a one-line message, for the giver and the recipient alike.
Gifts within the family: parents, children and partners
Most disputes over gifts never reach the headlines. They happen within the family, when parents promise a child an apartment "when the time comes," or when one partner promises the other a share in property registered in his name. When the relationship breaks down, the inquiry begins with whether the gift was completed or remained only a promise. If it remained a promise, its form and the reliance on it are examined.
The Gift Law also allows conditions to be set. Under section 4, a gift may be conditional, and it may oblige the recipient to do something with the gift or to refrain from doing so, and the giver may demand that the recipient fulfill the obligation. Parents who transfer an apartment to a child and want to keep living in it, or who make the gift conditional on the apartment not being sold for a certain period, should anchor this in the gift document itself. Canceling a gift that has already been registered, without such a condition, is very difficult, because the withdrawal grounds of section 5 are designed for a promise not yet carried out.
There is also a fundamental difference between a gift and a will. A gift takes effect during the giver's lifetime, and once completed, the property has left his hands. A will takes effect only after death, and the testator may change it throughout his life. Anyone weighing the two should consider not only what he wants today but also his situation a decade from now, and the consequences for his other children, which sometimes surface only in an inheritance dispute.
How to draft a promise to give a gift that will hold up
The case law paints a consistent picture. A person who wishes to make a gift and ensure that it materializes would do well to do so in a signed document that identifies the property precisely, sets a date for the transfer, addresses mortgages and liens and makes clear who will bear the expenses. If the intention is that the promise cannot be withdrawn, the law itself points the way: a written waiver of the right of withdrawal. And in a real estate transaction, true completion is registration.
When the decision is final, it is sometimes simpler to complete the gift than to promise to give it in the future. A registered transfer is not subject to the right of withdrawal under section 5, but it is also not easily reversed, and so it calls for advance thought about the giver's own needs in the years ahead.
On the other side, a person who has received a promise and is about to act on it, for example by selling a property or taking out a loan, would do well to ask for it to be set down in a signed document and to keep a record of the steps taken. Without such a document, and without evidence of a change of position, the promise, however heartfelt, may turn out to be worth exactly as much as the screen it appeared on.
Every case is examined on its own circumstances: the wording of the promise, the context in which it was given, the documents signed and the steps taken in its wake. Anyone who has given or received a promise to give a gift, especially where an apartment is involved, may contact our office to review the documents and the circumstances and to examine the options available under contract law and the Gift Law.
Questions and answers
Can a WhatsApp message create a promise to give a gift?
Under section 5(a) of the Gift Law, a promise to give a gift in the future requires a written document, and where an apartment is involved, the writing requirement of section 8 of the Land Law also applies. In the ruling reported on November 5, 2026, the Supreme Court did not decide whether a text message satisfies that requirement, but it expressed serious doubt that a terse message creates any undertaking at all, because it does not reflect firm intent and definiteness. And even where a written message does create a promise, the giver may generally withdraw as long as the recipient has not changed position in reliance on it.
Can you withdraw from a promise to give a gift?
Generally, yes. Under section 5(b) of the Gift Law, the giver may withdraw as long as the recipient has not changed position in reliance on the promise, unless the giver waived this right in writing. In addition, under section 5(c), the giver may withdraw if the withdrawal is justified by the recipient's disgraceful conduct toward the giver or a member of his family, or by a significant deterioration in the giver's financial situation.
What counts as a change of position that prevents withdrawal from a gift?
A change of position is a real step the recipient took because of the promise, such as selling another apartment, taking out a loan or investing in renovating the promised property. The burden of pleading and proving the change of position is on the recipient. In the penthouse case, the court held that the woman neither claimed nor proved that she had changed her position, so the man was entitled to withdraw.
Parents transferred an apartment to their children as a gift. Can the gift be canceled?
If the transaction was registered, the gift was completed, and the right of withdrawal in section 5 of the Gift Law, which deals with a promise to give a gift in the future, does not apply to it. Canceling a completed gift is possible only in exceptional circumstances, for example where the gift was given subject to a condition that was breached or where the giver's consent was flawed. That is why anyone who wants to keep a right of residence or another condition should anchor it in the gift document.
Is an oral promise to give an apartment binding?
Generally not. Both the Gift Law and the Land Law require a written document, and in C.A. 986/93 Klemer v. Guy the Supreme Court held that the writing requirement in real estate transactions is substantive and not merely evidentiary. The principle of good faith can overcome the absence of a writing only in special and exceptional cases.
What is the difference between a gift and a will?
A gift takes effect during the giver's lifetime, and once completed, the property passes to the recipient. A will takes effect only after death, and the testator may change it as long as he is alive. The choice between them depends on whether the giver is prepared to part with the property now, and on the consequences for the other heirs.
Sources
- ynet, Lital Dubrovitzky: Supreme Court rules a WhatsApp message to his ex will not cost the businessman his penthouse (Hebrew), 5.11.2026
- Bizportal (Takdin), Itamar Levin: He promised her the penthouse in a text message, but the Supreme Court ruled he lawfully withdrew (Hebrew), 5.11.2026
- Calcalist, Lital Dubrovitzky: The most expensive WhatsApp ever? The message to his ex that cost a businessman a luxury penthouse (Hebrew), 4.2.2026
- Gift Law, 5728-1968 (text as passed by the Knesset, Knesset website) (Hebrew), 19.6.1968
- Land Law, 5729-1969 (text as passed by the Knesset, Knesset website) (Hebrew), 1969
- C.A. 986/93 Klemer v. Guy, Supreme Court (text of the judgment) (Hebrew), 12.6.1996
- ynet, Adv. Tamara Rafaelov (Psakdin): They agreed on an apartment sale over WhatsApp. Judge: "This is not a contract" (Hebrew), 23.1.2023
This article provides general information and is not a substitute for legal advice on your specific matter. More on Contracts and Agreements · Contact the firm
First published in Hebrew. Read the Hebrew original