The Case
A Missing Wedding Ring
Sally lost her engagement ring and she and her family spent over a week searching for her precious diamond. When the continued search proved to be futile, her husband purchased a wedding band to replace her diamond ring. Six months later, Sally and her husband hired the services of Avi, a contractor, to reconstruct their bathroom. Avi tore out a built-in vanity of the bathroom and disassembled it outside in front of the house. A hidden surveillance camera caught Avi pocketing the ring that he found wedged behind the drawer of the vanity. Before Sally called the police, she reached out to our Bet Din to assist her in collecting her valuable ring in an amicable manner. In Bet Din Avi defended his position claiming that since Sally lost the ring, she apparently despaired from ever retrieving it. Furthermore, he was in the process of trashing the contents of the bathroom and if not for him finding the ring, it would have been lost. Avi expressed that he is graciously willing to give back the sentimental ring to Sally if she monetarily reimbursed him with its market value. Sally was livid and her violent reaction to Avi’s claim caused the hearing to end abruptly.
Is Avi entitled to monetary compensation for the value of the ring or not? How should the Bet Din rule and why?
Torah Law
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a finder is entitled to keep a lost object if it is established that the owner despaired from ever retrieving it. This rule is subject to numerous rules and regulations, some of which are not within the context of this article. However, prior to keeping a lost object, one is required to first consult with a competent halachic authority.
Leading halachic authorities debate whether an object that is lost on an owner’s property is subject to the above-mentioned ruling. On the one hand, it stands to reason that even if an owner despairs of retrieving a lost object, another party may not claim its ownership since it was technically never lost to the owner. The lost object was unknowingly in the possession of its owner all along and his despair cannot effectively render the object as ownerless. On the other hand, some halachic authorities view an owner who despairs of retrieving a lost object as an act of abandonment, thereby allowing another party to take ownership of the lost object even if found on the owner’s property.
Additionally, even according to the former opinion, which restricts a finder from taking possession, some halachic authorities limit this restriction to instances in which the object was found in a protected area on the owner’s property. If, however, the lost item was found outside on an unprotected area in the owner’s domain the finder is entitled to his keep. Other views differ and restrict a finder from keeping an object found on an owner’s property regardless if it was in a protected area or not.
The above-mentioned rulings are applicable only when an owner despairs of ever retrieving the lost item. A primary illustration of an owner despairing of retrieving his lost item is when he verbally expresses his anguish that the item lost represents a financial loss. Alternatively, when it is apparent that an owner despaired of retrieving the lost item, either because of the amount of time that elapsed since it was lost or the like, a finder may take possession. As aforementioned, some halachic authorities restrict such activity in the event the item was found on the owner’s property.
By rule of the Shulhan Aruch, upon verification of an item’s rightful owner, a finder is required to conduct himself beyond the letter of the law and return a lost object even if the owner already despaired of seeing it again. While a Bet Din will not legally enforce a defendant to comply with a ruling beyond letter of the law, it will nevertheless strongly instruct him to conform to his social and moral responsibilities that are cited in the Shulhan Aruch.
VERDICT: Serving as a Referee
Our Bet Din ruled that Avi is required to immediately return the wedding ring to Sally. We instructed him to apologize to her for his gross misconduct. Additionally, our Bet Din chastised Sally for her inappropriate violent behavior during their initial hearing. Instead of defending her position in an organized and productive manner, her reaction was rash and counterproductive.
As mentioned in Torah law, although Sally despaired of ever finding her ring, nevertheless, Avi was restricted from taking the ring for himself. Since the ring was all along in Sally’s home, according to numerous opinions Sally’s despair cannot effectively render her ring as ownerless. In short, since the ring was in her home it was never considered lost from a legal standpoint. While other opinions differ, it is the common practice of a rabbinical court to rule in compliance with the above-mentioned view. Although Avi found the ring in front of Sally’s home, nevertheless, upon inquiry, the exact area in which it was found was clearly within the property line. Additionally, based on the video review, it was somewhat evident that Avi detected the glittering diamond when he first exited the doorway of the house. The doorway of Sally’s home is clearly a protected area in Sally’s domain and thus satisfies other halachic opinions that support this ruling.
Lastly, by rule of the Shulhan Aruch, Avi is required to conduct himself morally and must comply with social norms. Thus, even if he has a legal claim to the ring, he should return it to Sally and conduct himself beyond the letter of the law as cited in the Shulhan Aruch.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Down the Drain
Danny rented a very old house from his landlord, Joseph, who resided most of the year in Florida. After years of tenancy, Danny received a water bill nearly ten times the sum he regularly pays. He brought in a plumber to inspect the home to determine the source of the problem. To his dismay, the plumber detected a burst water pipe below the concrete foundation of the home. Danny instructed the plumber to immediately repair the pipe, which included working through the concrete, repairing, and restoring the property. The price for the plumber’s services and for his accurate detection of the leak with state-of-the-art equipment was $4,000. Danny paid the plumber and later informed Joseph of the outstanding $4,000 bill. Danny, as well, expressed to Joseph that he is seeking compensation for nearly the entire sum of the exorbitant water bill. Additionally, Danny requested of Joseph to pay him for the ruined carpet he recently installed in the basement and for other damages caused to his personal property. Joseph responded that he was unwilling to partake in any of the costs Danny incurred. Joseph explained that the exorbitant fee of the high-end plumber was hired without his authorization, and furthermore, he claimed that the water bill is not his responsibility. Likewise, he countered, that the damaged carpet Danny chose to install in the basement is not his obligation to replace, nor was he required to reimburse him for any damages.
How should the Bet Din rule,
in favor of Danny or Joseph and why?