Lesson #300 • Robbing Real
Estate - Only 109 MLB players have hit 300 or more home runs. Only 22 pitchers in MLB history have won 300 or more games. Only 4 quarterbacks in NFL history have thrown 300 or more touchdown passes. Only 1 person has ever written 300 or more columns on Jewish Law for Torah Tidbits. Kol HaKavod, Rabbi Quint, on this milestone achievement. Shimon, the owner of real estate, the (“field”), protests and demands that Reuven not enter onto his field and not to do any work there. Reuven nevertheless enters. He has no claims whatsoever against Shimon for the plantings, construction or repairs that he does. Reuven, without authorization from Shimon, enters upon Shimon’s real estate and plants trees thereon. Assume that the real estate was worth $100 without the trees thereon and is worth $130 with the trees thereon and that the expense to Reuven in planting the trees is $20. Shimon has several options: (1) He may demand that Reuven remove the trees. (Reuven does not have the option to remove the trees if Shimon demands that they remain.) (2) Shimon may state that the trees should remain on the real estate. (3) Shimon may do nothing. (4) Shimon may complete the plantings started by Reuven. Assume that the field planted by Reuven is usually not planted by Shimon. (1) If Shimon demands that Reuven remove the trees he must do so and failing to do so Shimon can have the trees removed at Reuven’s expense.; this holds true even if Shimon saw Reuven do the planting and did not protest. (2) If Shimon says that the trees can remain on the field, and Shimon was not aware of the planting that Reuven was doing, then Shimon must pay Reuven the lower of Reuven’s expenses or the enhancement of the field (in the above case $20). (3) If Shimon does nothing, Reuven can collect $20 from Shimon, (4) If Shimon completes the plantings or in any other way shows that he is pleased with the plantings, then Shimon must pay to Reuven the higher of the expenses or the enhancement of the field (in the above case $30). Once Shimon has shown that he is pleased with the plantings that Reuven made, he can no longer demand that Reuven remove the plantings. Conversely, Once Shimon has demanded that Reuven remove the trees, he may not change his mind and demand that the trees remain there. There is a difference of opinion as to whether or not the demand by Shimon to remove the trees must be made in Beth Din to bind him so that he may no longer change his mind, or if it can be done even by demand made outside of Beth Din. All that has been said regarding Reuven planting trees in Shimon’s field applies to a structure built by Reuven on Shimon’s land. For example, Shimon bought real estate to place bungalows thereon and Reuven built a bungalow thereon. It is stated above that Reuven does not have the option of uprooting his plantings. There is an opinion that if Reuven builds a structure on Shimon’s field that can be removed without damage to the field then he may do so, although he may not do so regarding plantings. In the case of the structure, this holds true if there is no foundation or anything else that will leave the field in worse condition that it was before Reuven placed the structure thereon. In the case of plantings, the field will always be in worse condition than before if he removes the plantings. Even regarding plantings, he may do so if they have not yet taken root. Assume that the field where Reuven planted the trees is usually planted by Shimon. (1) If Shimon demands that Reuven remove the trees, he must do so, and failing to do so, Shimon can have the trees removed at Reuven’s expense; this holds true even if Shimon saw Reuven do the planting and he did not protest. (2) If Shimon says that the trees can remain on the field, then Shimon must pay to Reuven the higher of Reuven’s expenses or the enhancement of the field (in the above case $30). (3) If Shimon does nothing, Reuven can (in the case above) collect $30 from Shimon, (4) If Shimon completes the planting or in any other way shows that he is pleased with the plantings, then Shimon must pay to Reuven the higher of the expenses or the enhancement of the field ($30 in the above case). If Reuven plans in Shimon’s field with Shimon’s authority, then Shimon must pay to Reuven the higher of the expenses or the enrichment of the field. In the above example, always $30. This holds true even if the field is one that is not usually planted. Assume that Levi possesses Shimon’s field as a sharecropper. Reuven plants or does other work in the field. Shimon has no liability to Reuven. Levi does. The amount of the compensation that Levi owes to Reuven is the sum that a sharecropper would pay to have the work done that Reuven did. Assume that Levi is the husband of a minor girl and possess her field in what we call a NICHSAI MELOG arrangement. In essence he works her field and keeps the profits, he is recognized in the law as a person who enters upon the owner’s field with authority and is compensated the higher of the expenses or the enhancement of the field. The Sages of the Talmud instituted this rule so that a husband would take better care of his wife’s property. Assume that Levi and Shimon are partners in the ownership of the field. If Levi makes repairs to the field or plants there, he is deemed a person who enters someone’s field with authority. Reuven enters upon Shimon’s house and makes repairs and the rents the house to Aharon. The rent that he is paid is deducted from the money owed by Shimon to Reuven for the repairs. To hold otherwise would permit Reuven to do business with Shimon’s property. This holds true even if Shimon does not hold out his house for lease. If Shimon, the owner of a structure that is in danger of collapse, instructs Reuven not to enter upon the structure and not to make any repairs, then if Reuven makes repairs, Reuven will not be compensated and he may not undo the repairs. Whenever it is held that Shimon must pay to Reuven the amount of his expenditures, Reuven must first take an oath holding a sacred object stating how much he expended. If Shimon is to pay for the enhancement, Beth Din may fix the amount, including asking for expert testimony; in this situation, Reuven need not take an oath. Assume that Shimon is required to make payments to Reuven as above stated and Shimon pleads that he paid Reuven and Reuven pleads that he was not paid. Reuven will win the lawsuit if he takes an oath that he was not paid. This holds true if there was not sufficient time for Shimon to pay Reuven after the amount of payment was fixed by Beth Din. The best practice would be for Shimon to obtain a receipt when he pays Reuven or to pay him in front of witnesses. With this lesson we complete the laws of Robbery. IYH the next lessons will return to Dina D’Malchuta Dina. The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in volume IX chapter 375 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint. Copies of all volumes can be purchased via email: orders@gefenpublishing.com and via website: www.israelbooks.com and at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il [The Parshat
Sho-f'tim Homepage]
|
