Q&A: A Dispute Between Apartment Owners
A Dispute Between Apartment Owners
Question
Good week to the Rabbi,
a0
Thank you for your willingness to offer an opinion. Apparently I was misleading when I said we would go to a religious court. What I meant was to approach Rabbi Peretz (or probably someone he recommends, if he is no longer dealing with this for health reasons) in order to hear his view on the basis in Jewish law.
a0
Background
a0
This is a residential building about 15 years old that includes 8 apartments in Ra'anana. 5 of them are rented out, and in 3 live families who own the apartments, one of them being our daughter (we bought the apartment about a year ago).
a0
The original owner of the lot owns 4 rented apartments a0 14 a Jewish ba'al teshuvah (let's call him Mr. S.) who lives in the Jerusalem area. According to his own statement, the apartments are a pension investment for him, and his interest is purely business and financial, and according to him it is different from and even opposed to the interests of the apartment owners who actually live in the building. (He also openly describes himself as stingy.)
The owner of another apartment also rents it out and lives in Tel Aviv. He was recently persuaded by S. to give him power of attorney on the basis of their shared interest as landlords in investing as little as possible, after at first he strongly supported our renovation proposal.
a0
Description of the problem
a0
The maintenance of the building is very poor, and its condition has deteriorated over the years: lights are not working in the lobby and parking garage, some are hanging from electrical wires from the ceiling, outlets are exposed, the lobby is neglected, the intercom system does not work, mosaics that cover the exterior walls are falling into a garden apartment (a safety hazard), a fire-extinguishing pipe in the parking garage was damaged by a car and not repaired.
The building had no third-party liability insurance (we recently got insurance because of pressure from us, after Mr. S. admitted that this had been irresponsible on his part).
Mr. S. is effectively the building committee representative (there was never a meeting to elect a committee), and he also holds the bank account for the building maintenance fees. He handles problems remotely, at his own pace, without taking into account the harm to the residents, and using a patch-on-patch approach.
a0
When we joined the building, we proposed doing a renovation and getting the building back on track, and we volunteered to manage the project (my wife is very good at design and renovations). We defined the scope of work and brought 3 competing bids. The best proposal was for 80,000 NIS a0 14 10,000 NIS per apartment. (Meaning Mr. S. would have to pay 40,000 NIS.)
At a meeting held about two months ago, the proposal was accepted by everyone under two conditions set by Mr. S.: 1. that the receipts for the work be registered in his name (for purposes of recognition as expenses for income tax and ability to offset VAT a0 14 from his perspective the apartments are a business, legally somewhat questionable); 2. S. claimed that he had cash-flow constraints and could pay only 10,000 NIS (which he would take as a loan from a free-loan fund), and the rest in 10 monthly payments of 3,000 NIS.
The three apartment owners who live in the building agreed to his conditions, and it was agreed that each of us would finance him (lend him) 10,000 NIS, which he would repay over 10 months.
It was agreed that we would manage the project with full transparency, within budget, and on a short timetable.
After a handshake and getting started (we bought light fixtures and ordered floor tiles for the lobby), Mr. S. began demanding changes to the plan, reducing some of the scope, and even carrying it out in stages rather than continuously.
a0
We informed him that under those conditions we were not willing to handle the renovation.
a0
Meanwhile, because of the heavy pressure we exerted together with the owner of the garden apartment, into whose place tiles were falling practically "on her head," Mr. S. brought a proposal to deal with the problem by rappelling down the exterior wall, at a cost of 24,000 NIS. All the apartment owners paid immediately (in light of the safety issue, which by the way has already been ongoing for two years), with the understanding that Mr. S. would supervise the contractor he had brought. The work was done poorly, without supervision, and Mr. S. is evading responsibility and asking that the apartment owners present their complaints to the contractor, whom he will summon in about two weeks.
a0
The current situation is that Mr. S., on behalf of 5 apartments, claims that he is willing to advance treatment of the problems in stages and at the pace of his financing ability, and also to determine the scope of the work (from his perspective only the strictly necessary items), while the 3 apartment owners who live in the building want to carry out the renovation according to the agreed plan and continuously within a short time, with us (mainly Rachel, my wife) managing the project.
a0
Mr. S.'s position a0(as I understand it from many written WhatsApp exchanges in the apartment owners' group and from a mediation attempt meeting held last week that blew up, aside from a willingness to approach Rabbi Peretz a0 14 I am of course not objective!!)
a0
Mr. S. insists on his right to make a broad decision, such that as representative of the majority of apartments he will decide what is done in the building, how and when things are done, and how much money is spent.
He quotes the Supervisor of Condominiums and the Real Estate Law.
a0
He also quotes statements and sayings: "Follow the majority" and "He who has the hundred has the say."
a0
Specifically regarding dealing with the state of the building, he wants to handle the problems in stages, according to the scope and priorities he sees fit, and at a pace that suits his cash flow (meaning the work would be spread over at least half a year, with partial and not full comprehensive treatment, and limited supervision).
a0
A quote from his latest WhatsApp message:
a0
In my opinion the question is incorrect, but every person may ask as he sees fit 14 the rabbi is not a contractor and has not seen the quality and condition of the building 14 so in my opinion he would have to bring his own expert.
I am going to ask how, according to Jewish law, one determines in a shared building what, how, and how much money? I am not talking about routine matters but about a broad decision governing all building decisions concerning the building.
It is clear to us that according to the Supervisor of Condominiums the majority of apartments decides, but since both my son and I are committed to Jewish law, we are asking a rabbi 14 each one his own question 14 Sabbath peace.
a0 a0
a0
My position 14 together with the 3 apartment owners who live in the building
a0
There are no incorrect questions; sometimes there are incorrect answers.
I know the Real Estate Law very well, and the rights of the majority of apartment owners 14 for that there is no need to go to a rabbi.
a0
Rather, the dispute and discussion are about other questions, and those are what I at least would like to present to the Rabbi.
a0
1. Where are the limits of majority rights when its conduct over time harms the rights of the minority? (By the way, this is a minority of apartment ownership, but the rights of the tenants are also harmed, and really all the residents of the building. When I once asked some of the tenants why they do not complain to Mr. S., their landlord, they said they were afraid his answer would be: "If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave; I'll get a tenant for more money.")
a0
Harm to the residents' rights to safety, quality of life, security, and preservation of the value of their property.
a0
2. What are the obligations of the majority to ensure proper maintenance of the common property and the building according to the Real Estate Law a0 14 quote:
"An apartment owner must participate in the expenses required for the proper maintenance and management of the common property and for ensuring the services required by law or accepted by custom, in proportion to the floor area of his apartment relative to the floor area of all the apartments in the condominium, unless a different participation rate was established in the bylaws;
for this purpose, 'proper maintenance' means preserving the condition of the common property as it was at the completion of construction, including improvements made thereafter with the consent of the apartment owners."
3. What happens when the majority, which does not live in the building and rents out the apartments, explicitly declares that its interest is purely business and financial, in conflict with the welfare of the minority apartment owners, and acts according to that interest while ignoring families, people, and children who suffer from this day after day over a long period?
a0
4. What is the law when the majority tries to impose decisions that harm the maintenance and management of the building for private and personal reasons, and rejects proposals by the partners to accommodate it and help with financing?
a0
All of the above has a name in political science: "the tyranny of the majority," and the minority has protections and rights.
a0
5. What does Jewish law say about "follow the majority" 14 is the majority determined by the number of apartments or by the number of people? (Who counts more from the standpoint of Jewish law: one person with 4 apartments, or 3 people (and families) with 3 apartments?)
a0
We believe that after a process of getting the building back on track in terms of safety and quality of life, and after an orderly election of a committee that will probably include Mr. S. and another representative of the apartment owners, in the normal course of responsible ongoing maintenance there will be no substantial problem of decision-making in the building.
a0
Notes
a0
Regarding "he who has the hundred has the say," I found on the Ashuva site the following passage:
a0
The saying goes, "He who has the hundred has the say," but this saying fits the nations of the world. Among the people of Israel the saying is the reverse: "He who has the understanding has the hundred." Those who have the money are subordinate to those who have the understanding 14 Torah understanding. And anyone who exploits being "the one with the hundred" in order to also be "the one with the say" destroys the Torah and tears down the whole edifice of Judaism, by acting according to his own opinion even when it does not accord with Torah understanding.
a0
I saw on Wiktionary that the source of the saying is from Yiddish:
Der vos hot di me'ah hot di de'ah. (Yiddish)
a0
Thank you very much in advance
Answer
Hello,
If you are not going to a religious court but only asking a rabbi, then why do you also need me?!
Beyond that, what determines the matter here is the law, not Jewish law. Aside from the principle of the law of the land, in neighbor disputes it is custom that determines things. Therefore, you should ask a legal expert what the law says, and that is what is binding halakhically as well.
Discussion on Answer
Hello,
As I wrote, what determines these matters is the law, and therefore these questions should be directed to a legal expert and not to me.
I will nevertheless briefly address what emerges from Jewish law [see Choshen Mishpat sections 161 (a courtyard is like a condominium) and 164 (here it is actually a building 14 a house and an upper story)]. But because the question is general, I won't go into details, and will only state the principles. These remarks are general and not about any specific particular case.
0. Let me begin by saying that the interests and motivations of each side are their own business and are not relevant to the legal-halakhic discussion. A person has the right to act in whatever way seems fit to him, whether his goals are business-related or residential.
1. A renovation that is required for the building as a whole, in order to save it from damage and make it usable, all the neighbors can be compelled to participate in it (like building a fence for a courtyard), even if the plaintiffs are a minority. To the best of my understanding, in Jewish law the majority has no significance in such contexts.
2. Painting and whitewashing (that is, decorations and luxuries, or upgrading the building) cannot be compelled. What counts as luxury (is an elevator a luxury?) is hard to determine, because it depends on common practice, on evaluation of the specific situation, what the intentions were at the time of purchase, and so on.
3. That is regarding the ability to compel participation itself. As for how participation in the expenses is divided, that is a separate matter. In section 161:3 it is explained that the division follows the monetary value of each owner's property.
4. All this assumes there is no one here who is considered a damager 14 meaning that the damage caused to your property is not because of his property or his actions. My assumption is that this is a renovation needed for the whole building because of age and construction quality. If there is any damage caused to you because of one of the residents' property or because of his actions, the obligation to repair falls only on him, by the law of one who causes damage.
5. All this applies only if the repair requires participation by everyone and is needed for everyone. For a repair that you can do to your own property, or that is needed only by you, and there is no one else considered a damager, then of course the whole burden is on you.
6. If there are tenants in the apartments, there are some things for which, from the standpoint of Jewish law, the obligation is on them and not on the landlord. This refers to things connected to their use. They can of course later turn to the landlord, depending on the contract between them and local custom.
7. And again, as I explained, in principle all this is not relevant in practice.
All the best and good luck,
Thanks
Mr. S. wants to hear Rabbi Peretz's view, since he knows him, and I want to hear the view of the Rabbi whose lessons I listen to in part.
I can't manage to get an answer regarding what the law says on the basic question of whether the majority can impose its opinion on the minority when it has interests opposed to those of the minority. Can the majority deprive the minority of its rights and cause it losses or other harms just because it is the majority?
My basic sense of justice tells me that Jewish law has tools to protect a minority (as stated, this is a minority in apartment assets but a majority in terms of the people being harmed).
I assume Jewish law addresses this question, and since Mr. S. is willing to hear what Jewish law has to say, I would be glad to receive an answer to the basic question.
One last attempt, and I won't keep nagging.