Community Magazine November 2012

According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch , one who derives benefit from another’s property at no loss to the property’s owner, is generally not required to pay for the benefit he received. Nevertheless, in cases where the provider can prove that he had originally intended on collecting for the assistance he extended, he is entitled to compensation, even if the expense was inevitable for his own personal benefit. Additionally, according to many halachic authorities, even if the provider did not intend to collect from a beneficiary, if the recipient indicates an interest and willingness to pay for the benefit that the other party provided, he is obligated to compensate the provider for his share in the expenditure. Therefore, if the recipient spends his own money to further maximize the benefit provided by the other party, he is subsequently obligated to compensate the provider. Other halachic authorities dispute this ruling, and exempt the recipient from payment. However, in instances in which one party built an edifice on joint property and the beneficiary subsequently capitalized on it by extending on the second floor, all agree that compensation is due. The rationale behind this ruling is that since the downstairs extension was built on property also belonging to the upstairs owner, he legally acquires any part of the extension he is using for his benefit. Hence, he is required to pay for that acquisition. Thus, in circumstances in which an owner of a main floor edifice can prove that he had extended his property with the intent of sharing the expense with his upstairs neighbor, his is entitled to compensation. And if the downstairs owner built his extension on joint property, the upstairs owner must compensate for the benefit he receives from the downstairs extension, even if the downstairs owner did not originally intend on sharing the expense. It is important to note that a main floor owner is entitled only to half the expense for the floor base he provided for the upstairs, in addition to half the cost of the foundation he supplied. He may not collect for any other expenses incurred, since the upstairs neighbor did not directly benefit from the balance of the exterior or interior work done to the downstairs edifice. In the event that the original owner of the upstairs apartment had never extended his home onto the downstairs extension, and later sold his apartment to another, the buyer is subject to the same laws. Since the new buyer chose to extend the upstairs, he is the beneficiary of the floor provided for him by the downstairs extension. He may not claim that since he had already paid a high purchase price for the apartment it included compensation for the unutilized foundation and floor base. Since the seller never benefited from the downstairs extension, any benefit the buyer receives from making an extension, is new and unrelated to the original purchase price. After researching the history of the relationship between the original seller and Abe, it was proven that they had planned to build a two-floor extension together, splitting the cost of the expansion. After the contractor completed Abe’s downstairs structure, he was asked to halt any further building. Eli’s seller had suffered a major financial setback and was no longer able to afford the second floor extension. He was forced to sell his apartment to Eli, who maximized on his newly acquired property by extending his home onto Abe’s structure below. Since Abe’s original intent was to share the costs of the project, anyone benefiting from the structure he built is obligated to compensate him. Furthermore, as mentioned in Torah Law, in instances in which a benefactor built an edifice on joint property and the beneficiary capitalized on it by extending onto it, he is required to make payment. Since the downstairs extension was built on land which belonged to both Eli and Abe, once Eli extended his upstairs apartment, he automatically acquired any part of the downstairs structure needed to support his expansion and is thus required to provide reimbursement for it. However, although Abe’s claim for payment was valid, the amount was grossly inflated since it included the cost of the lavish interior and exterior renovations. Since, as mentioned, Abe is only entitled to collect half the cost of the rough floor base and foundation he provided, the sum Eli would be required to pay, under the circumstances, was only a small fraction of the original claim. With this information, Abe therefore decided to waive his claim, preferring to remain on friendly terms with his new neighbor. Sources: Baba Batra 5a, Baba Kama 20b, Shulhan Aruch – Hoshen Mishpat 157:10, Kesot Hahoshen 157:11,158:6, Rama 264:4, Tosafot Baba Batra 5a, Mishpetei Emet 2:409, Minhat Eliyahu 1:50. EXTENDED TROUBLE Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din The Case Eli recently purchased a second floor apartment in a two-family home at a reasonable price. He proceeded with the necessary renovations, which included extending the back of the home onto the roof of his downstairs neighbor, Abe. As the top floor construction neared completion, Abe sent a bill to Eli for $250,000, half the cost of the downstairs extension he had built some five years earlier. Eli thought Abe was playing a practical joke, and casually commented to him in jest that he would be making payment first thing in the morning. Abe, however, was quite serious, and summonsed Eli to Bet Din to resolve the matter. In Bet Din, Abe explained that if not for the downstairs edifice that he had built, Eli would not have been able to build a second floor. He therefore argued that it is only proper for Eli to compensate him for half his costs. Eli responded that he had only recently purchased the second floor home and was not involved in any building that transpired five years ago. Eli added that Abe had built the downstairs extension for his own personal benefit, and has no right to capitalize on his upstairs neighbor. How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Eli or Abe? Verdict: A BASIS FOR PAYMENT Torah Law photo by: abraham amzalak 66 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE