P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part I | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) and the defendant (=def) own neighboring apartments in a building in which all the owners on one wing expanded their apartments. As a result of pl’s renovations, pl’s contractor changed the pipes draining the wing’s waste, and they now service only pl and def. Ten years later, pl reported to def that there was a major clog and then fixed it with plumber A for 15,500 NIS. Weeks later, pl paid plumber B to do additional work for 14,000 NIS. Pl asked def to pay half of the cost of repairs. Def refuses to pay at least the great majority of the expense for several complementary reasons: 1. The problem stemmed from mistakes in the redone piping. 2. Research revealed that plumber A took an unreasonable amount of money, and the second repair was not needed. 3. Pl told def that plumbing needed to be done, but def had no idea it would cost so much. 4. Other people in the building share some of the pipes and should also be charged. 5. The receipts pl presented contain irregularities.

Ruling: [Beit din almost succeeded in getting the sides to agree to a compromise, explaining that in order to find out the truth on some of the claims, which might not even be possible, would require several thousands of NIS and much effort from all sides. After agreeing to a compromise number, the sides squabbled over ancillary matters and pl withdrew his agreement.]
The gemara (Bava Metzia 108a) says that when drainage that goes from field-to-field clogs up, the people in the higher fields must help pay for the blockage at the lower fields, which affect all of them. However, if the blockage is in the upper fields and does not affect the bottom ones, the latter do not have to pay for the needs of the former. According to that model, there is basis to make def reimburse pl so that they pay in equal parts. This is also binding based on common practice and local law.
In this case, def agreed to have pl act according to the needs of the two of them, which is binding without any further act of kinyan (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 182:1). It still needs to be determined whether the steps that pl took on behalf of both pl and def were within the realm of the acceptable, which is required for def to be required to chip in equally (see ibid. 176:10; Rama, CM 182:3). If the price of the job were low, it is possible that we would presume that the neighbors give the one representing them free rein, but not for cases like this which came to many thousands of NIS. This is one of the matters that beit din cannot determine just based on the pictures and descriptions provided.
The Rosh (Shut 107:6) is among those who rule that when it is the most reasonable thing to do, beit din can rule based on compromise even when the sides do not agree to it, and this is also specified in our arbitration agreement. The Shulchan Aruch (CM 12:5) mentions as one of the cases, when the ruling cannot be clarified. The same is true when it is not in the interest of the sides to try to clarify.
We will continue next time with analyzing the relative strength of the claims in order to arrive at a proper compromise.