Shabbat Parashat Miketz 5785

P'ninat Mishpat: Overpaying Rent by One of the Roommates – part II

Case: The original plaintiff (=pl1) and three friends (pl2-4) were still renting an apartment from the defendant (=def) in the final year of six years that def rented to a changing group of women. [Last time we dealt with pl1’s claim of overpaying]. Def demands reimbursement from pl1-4 for the painting of the apartment he had done after their refusal. Also, the fact they did not paint or enable def to finish painting before the next renters scheduled rental caused them to back out; def demands compensation for that loss. Pl1-4 counter that since they entered the apartment when it was not freshly painted, they were not required to paint.

Ruling: The contract states that pl1-4 must paint it before returning it. Nevertheless, pl1-4 argue that since the contract also says that they received the apartment painted, since this is false, they are not bound by the clause to paint. This argument is wrong on several grounds. For one, generally, if one signs that he attests to the proper condition of an apartment, he accepts the consequences of the situation when it were true, even if it is not objectively so. In other words, pl1-4 could not have complained about the apartment’s state after signing such a clause. It does not include a concession of the landlord that they can return it in the same form.

Also, in this case, the rental was effectively a six-year rental with a group of women (the group’s makeup partially changed sporadically). The rental started with a freshly painted apartment, and must end, based on the contract, with a freshly painted apartment. If pl1-4 wanted to treat each (yearly) renewal of the contract as a new rental, they should have painted it themselves every year. The fact that they decided not to should not deny def the proper return of the apartment. Although pl1-4 argued that the responsibility should be equally assumed by all the renters over the years, if those who stayed in the apartment or entered it did not demand that those leaving leave money for the painting, that was their decision. Therefore, pl1-4 must pay for the painting.

Def claimed 7,000 NIS for the painting, which is what he paid a professional painter. Beit din awarded only 3,000 NIS, corresponding to the expense of a non-professional job. The contract does not say that the painting must be professional, and def implied in the hearing that pl1-4 could have done it themselves. Since def led pl1-4 to believe that he was letting them get away with not painting and did not inform them that he would sue, he had no right to spend more on what turns out to be their account than they would have had to spend themselves.

Def cannot charge pl1-4 for the loss of his renters. There is no evidence that pl1-4’s behavior directly caused the new renters to not take the apartment. Indications are that the renters decided to back out of the agreement because of the quality of the apartment (as def blamed pl1-4 for lashon hara about it), and the new renters were unlikely allowed to back out. If def decided to let them “off the hook,” he cannot obligate pl1-4 in their place.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend