Community Magazine October 2009

Case 1 The Newlyweds’ Nightmare Case 2 A Surprise Summer Visit Case 3 Unfortunate & Untimely Joan and David were newlyweds who rented an apartment in a two-family home. After signing a contract and forwarding the landlord, Steve, a deposit for three months’ rent, they proceeded to renovate the apartment. New carpeting and a custom wall unit were installed, and the walls were freshly painted. Two days before the scheduled move, the couple visited the apartment to add some finishing touches. Much to their surprise, and dismay, they witnessed a demolition truck tearing down the building that stood adjacent to their apartment. The pounding shook the very foundation of their building, and the news that a major construction project was planned next door hit the couple like a ton of bricks. A high- rise with twenty-four apartments was to be built on the adjacent lot, and Joan and David were by no means interested in sticking around for the fun. They summoned Steve to Bet Din, demanding their deposit back, and financial compensation for all their home improvements. Steve firmly defended his position, stating that he had no prior knowledge of the construction site next door, and was living up to his part of the deal by providing a perfectly functional apartment. He was unwilling to release them from the contract, let alone make any payouts for home furnishings. How did the Bet Din rule: in favor of the landlord, or the tenants? Eli and Sherry spent their summer in Jerusalem, Israel. They rented a deluxe four-bedroom apartment from Avi at a flat rate of $9,000 for the summer. Upon arrival, and after inspecting the apartment, they prepaid the $9,000 sum to Avi, as they had agreed. Everything seemed to be running smoothly until the final week of the summer. Avi returned from his tour of Europe and expected to find his apartment vacant with the key by the next door neighbor. At the front door, Eli and Sherry explained to Avi that they had rented the apartment until Monday, August 24th, whereas Avi argued that the agreement was until Monday, August 17th. No contract was signed by the two parties, and the apartment could not house the two families together. In a mad rush to Bet Din, they needed to resolve which of the families needed to rent a hotel room before nightfall. How did the Bet Din rule? Donald was a healthy, eighty- five year-old man who lived alone. He rented an apartment and signed a two-year lease with his new landlord, but after just a few months of living in his new quarters, he was hospitalized and unfortunately passed on from an acute case of pneumonia. His children notified Sam, the landlord, of their father’s sudden death, and that the rental contract was terminated. Sam summoned Donald’s heirs to Bet Din, claiming that the monthly rent was to be paid from Donald’s estate, and that it was the children’s responsibility to sublet the apartment if they were interested in a release from the contract. Bet Din reviewed the contract, which contained no clause dictating what should happen in the event of death. How did the Bet Din rule – in favor of the landlord, or the heirs? L ANDLORD –T ENANT T ROUBLES F     B D Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel A pplying Torah law can sometimes prove to be a challenging task for the dayanim (judges) of the Bet Din. Puzzling situations arise that frequently require many hours of research, thought, and discussion, before the Bet Din can arrive at a final verdict. Whereas civil courts render decisions based on subjective human reasoning, a rabbinical court must answer to a Higher Authority and is responsible to provide a clear Torah basis for all its decisions. More challenging is the fact that not all cases are black and white; very often, both litigants present valid claims with clear halachic basis. When this occurs, a compromise is formulated in order to help settle the dispute. In essence, compromise allows the Bet Din to honor the legal position of both parties involved, thereby enabling a true and just verdict to emerge. Two of the following three cases were settled through a legal compromise. All three cases deal with unexpected situations that transpired between landlords and their tenants. When a Torah judicial system adjudicates law, truth, peace, and unity can be achieved. 60 Community magazine