YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case: The plaintiff (=pl) is an organization that rented property from Aug. 2004, with renewed contracts, until July 2010. In July 2008, the defendant (=def), another organization, sublet the property until the end of pl’s contract in 2010. Subsequently, def rented the property from the owner independently without a contract. In July 2011, def signed a contract but the arnona (municipal tax) account was still in pl’s name until Jan. 2012. The entire time, arnona was not paid, which caused a huge debt (974,632 shekels from Jan. 2007-Jan. 2012) which included inflation adjustments and interest. The lawyer pl hired to negotiate a payment plan with reduced penalties and tax breaks for their being NPOs, lowered the debt to 700,000, and arnona going forward was lowered due to def’s NPO work. Pl and def, which both benefitted from his work, disagree how to split up his 60,000 shekel fee. Pl wants it and the balance of the arnona debt to be paid according to the amount of time each used the property, i.e., pl¬ – Jan. 2007-June 2008 (period A) = 30%; def – July 2008-Jan. 2012 = 70%.) They argue that the fact that def preferred to keep things in pl’s name (contract, arnona account) should not harm pl. Def is willing to pay in full from July 2010 to July 2011 (period C) because they were full renters at that point. However, regarding the time they were sub-letters (period B), they should pay only according to the rate they are paying now because it was pl’s obligation to transfer the account to def, who could have received a bargain price. So too, in period D, when there was a contract between def and the owners, pl could have removed themselves without def’s help and the fact that pl was charged at a high rate was their own problem.
Ruling: The first question is who is the principle body obligated in arnona – the one in whose name the property is (i.e., pl) or the one who actually uses it (i.e., def). According to par. 326 of the Rules of Municipalities, once there is a transfer, including renting, the parties are supposed to inform the municipality and until they do, the previous possessor is responsible for payment. The implication is that pl’s being held responsible is procedural, but in essence, the one who is using the property and is thus benefitting from municipal services, is obligated. Thus, def is primarily responsible for period B-D. This is strengthened by the fact that def signed a memorandum in July 2008 accepting upon themselves payment of arnona.
P'ninat Mishpat (832)
Various Rabbis
405 - Backing Out of Joint Building Plans – part II
406 - Who Is Responsible for Municipal Tax When? – part I
407 - Returning Money of an Iska Loan – part I
Load More
Next week we will deal with other possible reasons to reduce def’s obligation.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part III
based on appeal of ruling 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part I
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Shoftim TESHUVA IN COURT OF LAW?
Parshat Shoftim-Chodesh Elul
Why does parshat Shoftim always come out during Elul? This innovative and central explanation is an eye-opener regarding many aspects of Judaism.
The Month of Elul TESHUVA IS THE ANSWER
The month of Elul serves as a vital time for self-reflection and personal accountability to prepare for true repentance.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Chemdat Yamim Moreshet Shaul: The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)
Chemdat Yamim The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)
Re'e NEVER EXTREME EXCEPT ISRAEL
Parshat Re'eh
Judaism is against extremism, so how can we understand the seemingly extreme statements found in our sages in favor of living in the Land of Israel and against living in Chutz laAretz? The article deals with the seeming contradiction between the strength of Free-Will and the strength of being influenced by our surroundings.
Ekev DANCE FOR ISRAEL- FOR YOUR BENEFIT
Parshat Eikev
Description: The 7 Haftarot we read after Tisha B'Av ("Shiva D'Nichemta") surely get us excited that they're coming TRUE, and awaken us to yearn, dance & join the return to Zion! The short article also deals with the problems and solutions facing the American Jewish community as discussed at a recent panel, as well as the question why Jews come from America to Israel to help when we face problems, but Israelis don't come to aid Jews in America when they face anti-Semitism.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Chemdat Yamim Moreshet Shaul: Twin Foundations
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 690
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 690
