Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [This week we will look at whether a squatter who admits he has no rights in a property can be removed from it by one who claims but has not proven that he has rights.]
First, note that one who has been in a property for years but does not claim that he formally acquired rights, cannot use the rights of chazaka (Bava Batra 41a). However, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 146:9) paskens like the Rishonim who say that only one who can prove that he has valid claims of ownership can remove the squatter. On the other hand, there are apparently contradictory passages in the Shulchan Aruch, as CM 146:22 implies that others cannot remove the one who is in the property only if the latter makes a clear claim of rights to it. The latter approach is also in line with the Rama (CM 222:4) who rules that if one admits to having sold his field but does not remember to whom, he can be removed by anyone who claims he bought it. We will cite some opinions on how to reconcile the sources.
1. Knesset Hagedola – The squatter’s right to stay until someone brings proof applies only when the squatter has been on the property for three years. 2. Aruch Hashulchan – the squatter has a right only when it is possible that he has acquired it from hefker. 3. Netivot Hamishpat, Kehillot Yaakov – the squatter cannot stay if he entered the property after the one making claims started his claims. The major sources seem to agree that one’s entering the field must have been in a manner that does not have indications of impropriety in order that he can stay.
In our case, def entered prp after pl had demonstrated their claims of control; def were also there for less than three years and do not have a claim that they may have received it from hefker. Therefore, def cannot stay in prp even until pl proves that their claims are true. Def’s claim is further weakened by the fact that their commitment in writing to pay pl for using prp only strengthens pl’s right to exercise their rights in relation to def.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
749 - P'ninat Mishpat: Proof Needed to Remove a Squatter – part I
750 - P'ninat Mishpat: Proof Needed to Remove a Squatter – part II
751 - P'ninat Mishpat: Proof Needed to Remove a Squatter – part III
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Semi-solicited Advice to Calm Down Petach Tikva
#227 Date and Place: 8 Tishrei 5669, Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
P'ninat Mishpat Payment for Not Clearing Warehouse On Time – part II
based on ruling 75076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part II
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part II
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: How Many Dayanim?
based on ruling 84139-1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
