Thursday, February 26, 2009
Nasty Neighbors? Lesson 4:
Ever heard a nasty neighbor story? There is now a website – www.rottenneighbor.com - dedicated to exposing nasty neighbors and lauding good ones. It describes itself as, “the first real estate search engine of its kind, helping you find troublesome neighbors before you sign the paperwork on your new house, condo or apartment.” The site includes detailed maps, outlining each neighborhood house by house. Users can highlight individual houses, label the “good neighbors” in green, or the “rotten neighbors” in red, and they can also elaborate on their tales of misery.
For while the law is limited in the kinds of behavior it can prohibit, it seems that there is no end to the number of ways that neighbors can make each other miserable. Common courtesy, it seems, is not always very common.
Jewish law has some unique mechanisms, however, to enforce neighborly relations and ethical conduct. We’ll take a fascinating look at how the courts deal approach “mentchlichkeit” this week in Lesson Four of You Be the Judge.
Looking forward to seeing you at the Chabad Torah Centre next Tuesday, 7:30pm.
For while the law is limited in the kinds of behavior it can prohibit, it seems that there is no end to the number of ways that neighbors can make each other miserable. Common courtesy, it seems, is not always very common.
Jewish law has some unique mechanisms, however, to enforce neighborly relations and ethical conduct. We’ll take a fascinating look at how the courts deal approach “mentchlichkeit” this week in Lesson Four of You Be the Judge.
Looking forward to seeing you at the Chabad Torah Centre next Tuesday, 7:30pm.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Lesson 3 Recap:
Thank you for attending our third lesson of You Be The Judge. Here’s a quick recap of the session:
Deciding Disputed Ownership in the Absence of Proof
Our lesson began with the case of Thomas Law Wilcox, who found a shopping bag full of historical papers in his late stepmother’s home. After advertising for an auction, several government officials obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent the sale of the papers, declaring the State of South Carolina their rightful owner. Generally, gubernatorial papers do belong to the state. At the same time, a fundamental legal principle is that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” Thus, in order to challenge the status quo, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove the other party’s claim is invalid.
Turning to the Jewish tradition, we reviewed a classic Talmudic passage in which two men grasp a single garment, presenting counterclaims of ownership. Such cases are often resolved by splitting the item, or selling it and dividing its value. However, if only one party has possession of an item, the possessor of the item is presumed to be the owner, since most people are averse to “breaking and entering” in order to steal an item which is not theirs.
Matters become more complicated, though, when the dispute involves land or cattle. People are less reluctant to move onto abandoned property, or to take cattle which is normally kept outdoors. Thus, in the case of real estate or livestock, and the possessor is presumed owner only if three years have passed since the onset of possession.
A Modern Talmudic Case
In a recent case brough before a rabbinic court, two men argued regarding ownership of a bike. Edry admitted stealing the bike from the bike rack in front of Soleimani’s house. However he claimed that the seller was a crook and had already sold the bike to him before Soleimani.
To resolve this case, the first step is to establish the classification of the bike. In one way, it is similar to inanimate property because it does not move on its own – so one might apply the principle that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” At the same time, it resembles cattle in that it is kept outside. Since one is less hesitant to steal from outside of a home, it is possible to invoke the rule requiring demonstration of a history of undisputed ownership.
A unique principle in Jewish law, migu, can also pertain to this case. It applies when a litigant brings a claim, in the absence of witnesses, and it is impossible to prove or disprove it. If the claim could have been stated in a way more advantageous to the person’s position, the migu argument would dictate that the claim, as stated, should be believed. According to this, since Edry freely admitted seizing the bike, the court may assume that he is telling the truth and took what was rightfully his.
The Legal and the Mystical
We conclude by reflecting on the mystical significance of these ownership laws. Early in the lesson, we reviewed the text in which two men present both claim to own the same garment. Similar arguments are made by souls standing before the heavenly tribunal, seeking to claim the reward for mitzvot performed during the souls’ lifetime. Mitzvot are often referred to as the garments of the soul. Each soul has a right to the mitzvot performed by the body it inhabitated during its lifetime. At the same time, every person is shaped and guided by mentors, teachers, parents and friends who also claim partial ownership to those good deeds. The souls thus stand before the Heavenly Tribunal, arguing over how to divide the the value of the soul’s “spiritual garments.” The Mishnah ultimately concludes that both the soul of the one who performed the mitzvah as well as the souls of those whose influenced in its performance share in the reward.
Thank you again for joining, and I very much look forward to seeing you next week for lesson four.
Deciding Disputed Ownership in the Absence of Proof
Our lesson began with the case of Thomas Law Wilcox, who found a shopping bag full of historical papers in his late stepmother’s home. After advertising for an auction, several government officials obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent the sale of the papers, declaring the State of South Carolina their rightful owner. Generally, gubernatorial papers do belong to the state. At the same time, a fundamental legal principle is that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” Thus, in order to challenge the status quo, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove the other party’s claim is invalid.
Turning to the Jewish tradition, we reviewed a classic Talmudic passage in which two men grasp a single garment, presenting counterclaims of ownership. Such cases are often resolved by splitting the item, or selling it and dividing its value. However, if only one party has possession of an item, the possessor of the item is presumed to be the owner, since most people are averse to “breaking and entering” in order to steal an item which is not theirs.
Matters become more complicated, though, when the dispute involves land or cattle. People are less reluctant to move onto abandoned property, or to take cattle which is normally kept outdoors. Thus, in the case of real estate or livestock, and the possessor is presumed owner only if three years have passed since the onset of possession.
A Modern Talmudic Case
In a recent case brough before a rabbinic court, two men argued regarding ownership of a bike. Edry admitted stealing the bike from the bike rack in front of Soleimani’s house. However he claimed that the seller was a crook and had already sold the bike to him before Soleimani.
To resolve this case, the first step is to establish the classification of the bike. In one way, it is similar to inanimate property because it does not move on its own – so one might apply the principle that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” At the same time, it resembles cattle in that it is kept outside. Since one is less hesitant to steal from outside of a home, it is possible to invoke the rule requiring demonstration of a history of undisputed ownership.
A unique principle in Jewish law, migu, can also pertain to this case. It applies when a litigant brings a claim, in the absence of witnesses, and it is impossible to prove or disprove it. If the claim could have been stated in a way more advantageous to the person’s position, the migu argument would dictate that the claim, as stated, should be believed. According to this, since Edry freely admitted seizing the bike, the court may assume that he is telling the truth and took what was rightfully his.
The Legal and the Mystical
We conclude by reflecting on the mystical significance of these ownership laws. Early in the lesson, we reviewed the text in which two men present both claim to own the same garment. Similar arguments are made by souls standing before the heavenly tribunal, seeking to claim the reward for mitzvot performed during the souls’ lifetime. Mitzvot are often referred to as the garments of the soul. Each soul has a right to the mitzvot performed by the body it inhabitated during its lifetime. At the same time, every person is shaped and guided by mentors, teachers, parents and friends who also claim partial ownership to those good deeds. The souls thus stand before the Heavenly Tribunal, arguing over how to divide the the value of the soul’s “spiritual garments.” The Mishnah ultimately concludes that both the soul of the one who performed the mitzvah as well as the souls of those whose influenced in its performance share in the reward.
Thank you again for joining, and I very much look forward to seeing you next week for lesson four.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Baseball Case: Hayashi vs Popov
Here is the Statement of Decision from the Superior Court of California (HONORABLE KEVIN M. McCARTHY):
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/bonds/popovhayashi121802dec.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/bonds/popovhayashi121802dec.pdf
Friday, February 20, 2009
Proof of Ownership
Harlee, a Pomeranian, is a little dog who has caused a whole lot of trouble – and a heated court case – in Spokane County, Washington State. The Graham family owned Harlee since he was a whelp, but on July 17, 2007, he wandered away from their home. Marcia and Richard Graham immediately began posting signs, placing advertisements and making phone calls to local animal shelters. Their efforts bore no fruit.
Two weeks later, on July 29, Harlee was found and taken to the SpokAnimal Shelter. After the 72-hour requisite waiting period, he was adopted by James Notti. About a month later, through a social grapevine, the Grahams located Harlee.
A huge dispute ensued. Both Graham and Notti held valid claims to Harlee. The Graham family desperately sought out their lost pet. At the same time, Notti, who had legally adopted Harlee, did not want to give him up.
In cases of ownership, many courts say that possession is nine-tenths of the law. But does this apply to animals that can move about freely and wander off on whim?
Our third lesson of You Be the Judge will consider this question – as well as compelling arguments in cases in which both parties present very legitimate – albeit mutually exclusive – claims. Additionally, in cases unlike Harlee, where it is impossible to trace the history of ownership, on whom does the burden of proof rest?
Find out in our third lesson!
Two weeks later, on July 29, Harlee was found and taken to the SpokAnimal Shelter. After the 72-hour requisite waiting period, he was adopted by James Notti. About a month later, through a social grapevine, the Grahams located Harlee.
A huge dispute ensued. Both Graham and Notti held valid claims to Harlee. The Graham family desperately sought out their lost pet. At the same time, Notti, who had legally adopted Harlee, did not want to give him up.
In cases of ownership, many courts say that possession is nine-tenths of the law. But does this apply to animals that can move about freely and wander off on whim?
Our third lesson of You Be the Judge will consider this question – as well as compelling arguments in cases in which both parties present very legitimate – albeit mutually exclusive – claims. Additionally, in cases unlike Harlee, where it is impossible to trace the history of ownership, on whom does the burden of proof rest?
Find out in our third lesson!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Lesson 2 Recap:
Thank you for attending our second lesson of You Be The Judge II. Here’s a quick recap of the session:
The Accidental Treasure: A Secular Analysis
We began with the case of Corliss v. Wenner. In this scenario, an employee of the Anderson Asphalt Paving Company found several rolls of gold coins concealed underneath soil that he was excavating. American law classifies such a find as “mislaid property;” this means that it was intentionally placed in its location, but then the original owner either forgot or was otherwise unable to retrieve it. If the original owner cannot be found, secular law provisionally awards the mislaid property to the current property owner rather than to the finder.
The Accidental Treasure: A Talmudic Analysis
We examined a question addressed to Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman concerning a worker who found several barrels of gold coins. A key point of Jewish law is that a person must have knowledge of an object in order to accept ownership of that object. Thus, a homeowner would not necessarily gain title over treasure found on the property. We briefly reviewed two other cases in which a business transaction included a hidden value, and established that according to this Talmudic principle, the person who first became aware of the value is its rightful owner.
In the case of finding a treasure underground, the Talmud differentiates based on its location- in an “old wall” or a “new wall.” The former likely dates back to antiquity, bearing no connection whatsoever to the current homeowner. If the latter, however, probably belonged to the homeowner’s parents or grandparents, then the homeowner would automatically gain possession through the laws of inheritance.
Otherwise, the finder would have a valid claim. It is also necessary to look into employment laws before deciding the final possessor, since one could argue that if someone were being paid to work for a day, such a windfall would defer to the employer. According to Jewish law, if a worker were being paid to do a specific task, such as find treasures, then the treasure would obviously belong to the employer. And employee however, who is hired to perform some task unrelated to the search for treasure would rightfully be able to keep any secondary objects while performing the work-related duties.
A Mystical Understanding of Ownership
We concluded our class with a brief overview of a mystical perspective on ownership. The Baal Shem Tov, founder of the Chassidic Movement, taught that every object contains a mystical reality. Within every object lies “divine sparks,” comprised of G-dly energy that constitutes the essential being of that object. Every individual is responsible for elevating the divine sparks association with the spiritual roots of that person’s soul. Te objects containing those sparks become that person’s physical possessions. Ownership represents the association between the soul and the divine sparks present in the owned object. Thus, Torah law does not create ownership, but reveals and responds to this mystical reality.
Thank you again for joining, and I very much look forward to seeing you next week for lesson three.
The Accidental Treasure: A Secular Analysis
We began with the case of Corliss v. Wenner. In this scenario, an employee of the Anderson Asphalt Paving Company found several rolls of gold coins concealed underneath soil that he was excavating. American law classifies such a find as “mislaid property;” this means that it was intentionally placed in its location, but then the original owner either forgot or was otherwise unable to retrieve it. If the original owner cannot be found, secular law provisionally awards the mislaid property to the current property owner rather than to the finder.
The Accidental Treasure: A Talmudic Analysis
We examined a question addressed to Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman concerning a worker who found several barrels of gold coins. A key point of Jewish law is that a person must have knowledge of an object in order to accept ownership of that object. Thus, a homeowner would not necessarily gain title over treasure found on the property. We briefly reviewed two other cases in which a business transaction included a hidden value, and established that according to this Talmudic principle, the person who first became aware of the value is its rightful owner.
In the case of finding a treasure underground, the Talmud differentiates based on its location- in an “old wall” or a “new wall.” The former likely dates back to antiquity, bearing no connection whatsoever to the current homeowner. If the latter, however, probably belonged to the homeowner’s parents or grandparents, then the homeowner would automatically gain possession through the laws of inheritance.
Otherwise, the finder would have a valid claim. It is also necessary to look into employment laws before deciding the final possessor, since one could argue that if someone were being paid to work for a day, such a windfall would defer to the employer. According to Jewish law, if a worker were being paid to do a specific task, such as find treasures, then the treasure would obviously belong to the employer. And employee however, who is hired to perform some task unrelated to the search for treasure would rightfully be able to keep any secondary objects while performing the work-related duties.
A Mystical Understanding of Ownership
We concluded our class with a brief overview of a mystical perspective on ownership. The Baal Shem Tov, founder of the Chassidic Movement, taught that every object contains a mystical reality. Within every object lies “divine sparks,” comprised of G-dly energy that constitutes the essential being of that object. Every individual is responsible for elevating the divine sparks association with the spiritual roots of that person’s soul. Te objects containing those sparks become that person’s physical possessions. Ownership represents the association between the soul and the divine sparks present in the owned object. Thus, Torah law does not create ownership, but reveals and responds to this mystical reality.
Thank you again for joining, and I very much look forward to seeing you next week for lesson three.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Lesson Two: The Treasure's Rightful Owner
Dear JLI Student,
Find a penny, pick it up, and all the day you’ll have good luck. - Children's Aphorism
We’ve all found pennies, and perhaps even nickels or dimes. Maybe you were fortunate enough to find a larger bill of money: A dollar, a twenty or a hundred?
A few years ago, Art Cochell, Floris, Iowa, was dismantling an old clothesline pole in his backyard. When he removed the pole from the ground, several coins slid out. Excited by this unexpected discovery, he returned to the area with a metal detector and some tools and continued to unveil a generous stash of coins. In a media interview, Cochell said that, “this is a dream find for metal detectors.”
Matters become more complicated, though, when there are a handful of claimants. In some cases, there can be a whole host of potential takers. If, for example, the treasure were found on someone else’s property, the homeowner might claim that it belongs to him. The finder will also like feel like the treasure’s rightful owner. Past owners of the property are likely to come forth as well.
There are other kinds of accidental treasures as well—when a purchased item, for example, turns out to be worth more than anyone expected. Our second lesson will explore how we disentangle competing claims in these kinds of situations.
I look forward to seeing you in class this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)