Michael Gabor Law Office & Notary

Gabor, Law Offices, Mediator and Notary is a leading law firm which practices family and inheritance law, and related aspects that deal with insolvencies of families in transition. The firm also practices the various aspects of insolvency, and Adv. Michael Gabor serves as a trustee in bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of the Official receiver.
The firm provides the full range of legal services for managing divorce proceedings, including exercising or revoking the Ktuba in the rabbinical courts, specific housing relief in the light of alimony and marital harmony, right of occupancy, marital harmony, visitation and custody arrangements, child support and alimony including for common law spouses, property (including dissolution of partnership), equitable distribution with an emphasis on the distribution of pension assets, stock options and shares, parental responsibility and parental alienation, common- law spouses, domestic violence and restraining orders, family torts, third-age divorces, management of arbitration and mediations and spouses agreements. The firm is also appointed by the courts as an officer in family matters, as an estate manager, receiver, and appointed guardian.
In addition, the firm drafts family agreements and carries out child support and alimony collection proceedings whether if through the execution chamber or in the framework of insolvency proceedings, with knowledge and proficiency in the interfaces between insolvency law and family law.
The firm is also proficient and experienced in collecting child support and alimony through foreign authority and collecting these payments in Israel under rulings from foreign jurisdictions.
The firm counsels mainly creditors (including those who won a child support or alimony verdict against debtors in insolvency proceedings) in insolvency proceedings, since Adv. Gabor serves as a trustee in insolvency proceedings on behalf of the Official receiver, and the knowledge in both fields enables him to handle the interfaces between these two fields. The firm also prepares lasting powers of attorney and alternatives to the traditional form of guardianship.

The Interface Between Insolvency Law and Family Law

The firm offers legal services for the full spectrum of topics in family law and also beyond it, and handles the interface between insolvency law and family law – a unique niche field, with knowledge that results from its dual expertise in these two fields. Adv. Gabor has vast experience in this field, including the implications of the insolvency on the dissolution of the family and on the distribution of properties and child support between the debtor who is in insolvency proceedings and the other spouse who sues in family proceedings, with a macro-perspective of the implications of insolvency on the entire family.

Reliability, Professionalism, Availability and Accessibility

The firm champions the values of reliability, professionalism, availability and accessibility to any client, while tailoring a legal strategy for every legal case.
Adv. Gabor’s vast experience and enormous proficiency in the aforementioned fields leads to an optimal result for the firm’s clients, and the firm’s case are often published in various legal textbooks, media articles and articles that the firm publishes, including on matters that pertain to the interface between insolvency law and family law.

Family Appeal 3984/15, The Ruling on a Minor’s Independent Claim for Child Support, which is Considered to be a Landmark Case

An example for the firm’s impressive achievements is the legal precedent that Adv. Gabor achieved on the matter of a minor’s right to file an independent case for child support (Family supreme court Appeal 3984/15). This case discussed the matter of a mother of a 3 year old child who filed a paternity claim in the court. The court determined who was the father and required him to pay child support. Over the years, the mother and the child reached an agreement with the father that they would waive all of the child support payments if he would recognize the child as his own and keep in touch with her. The father signed the agreement but breached it and didn’t maintain any connection to his daughter. Through Adv. Gabor, the daughter filed an independent claim against the father. This action reached the Supreme Court (after being accepted by the magistrate family court and rejected by the district court) and the claim was upheld by the supreme court (while accepting the mother’s appeal of the ruling of the district court) and nowadays it is considered a landmark case that binds family and district courts.

Selected Cases, Including Cases from the Past Year

A child support claim against a father whose paternity was not established at the time of birth - A man and a woman conceived a child and signed an agreement in which the mother stated that she is only interested that the father would be involved in the child’s life and she would not sue him for child support, especially in light of the fact that he is a foreign residents. The family court rejected this and ruled that the child would be entitled to child support payments since the minor’s benefit prevails over the parents’ interests. The father appealed this ruling and the district court determined that in light of the father’s reliance on the agreement with the mother and his compliance through maintaining a relationship with the minor, he shall not be liable to pay child support. In an appeal that the firm filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the mother, the binding legal rule was set, that a minor would not be bound by any agreement between the parents – and the Supreme Court emphasized the minor benefit principle which prevails over other interests. This is a binding rule of the Supreme Court.
An immigration lawsuit that was managed in three separate locations across the globe - the mother, who is a foreign resident, managed immigration proceedings against a father who is also a foreign resident, with both of them residing illegally in Israel. In this case, the immigration of the mother abroad was approved despite the father’s objection claiming that the child should move with him to his country. The district court rejected the father’s appeal and determined that the child would move with the mother to her country after proving that she was his dominant caretaker. All while the welfare and legal guardian’s position was that the minor should move to the father’s country in light of the father’s financial means and large family. This case revolved around the child’s benefit, and was settled with a majority vote.
Defending in a post-divorce Ktuba claim - The divorced woman filed to receive her Ktuba sum after waiving it in the court. Following a long evidence session, the court rejected her claim on the grounds of “accidental” waiver. This was a precedential case that set the framework for the timing and the possibility of suing for a Ktuba sum after the actual divorce while preventing the option of suing after a proper waiver of the wife.
Appeal on “parental alienation” or legitimate estrangement - the firm appealed the decision of the family court which prevented a mother from becoming sole guardian in light of claims about parental alienation of the other parent. The family court believed that sole guardianship should not be allowed due to the alienation as sole guardianship will worsen and solidify the estrangement. In the appeal that the firm filed the ruling was reversed and the district court made the distinction between legitimate estrangement and alienation and outlined milestones for checking “parental alienation”.