Illustration.
The Supreme Court ruled: 'The parents are not responsible' (Photo: ShutterStock)
The son broke the law - who is responsible?
The Supreme Court accepted an appeal filed by a couple, regarding the determination of a lower court, according to which they are responsible for their son staying in the apartment they rented, beyond the time stipulated in the contract.
In doing so, the Supreme Court annulled decisions made by the Magistrate's Court and the District Court, which each imposed responsibility to one degree or another on the parents.
The affair began after those spouses vacated the rented apartment they lived in, after the end of the lease, but their son stayed there and even negotiated with the owner regarding his continued stay.
The negotiations did not mature into a new contract, and the son refused to leave the apartment and held it for almost another year.
As a result, the owner of the apartment filed a claim for rented eviction against the couple and against their son.
The Magistrate's Court ruled in the verdict that even though the couple do not actually own the apartment, they are not exempt from their responsibility to take care of the son's eviction, and therefore an eviction order was issued against the son and against his parents - even though they no longer lived in the apartment, as mentioned.
The ruling dealt with the parents' contractual responsibility for the late delivery and their responsibility for the son's invasion of the leased property.
"The contractual responsibility lies with the parents"
The couple appealed to the district court and pointed out that in a claim for eviction of a tenant there is only one remedy - an order for eviction by a tenant, therefore the very determination of the Magistrate's Court that they were not in the apartment at the time of filing the claim, makes the claim barren of a remedy, and therefore it should have been rejected with respect to them only .
Therefore, the parents argued, the court had to reject all the factual and legal determinations regarding their responsibility for the non-eviction of the tenant and the son's invasion.
Among other things, the lease stipulated an agreed compensation of 600 shekels for each day of delay in returning the apartment to its owner, so the owners of the apartment sued the parents and the son in the amount of hundreds of thousands of shekels.
The district court partially accepted the parents' appeal, and canceled the eviction order against the parents for the simple reason - that they no longer actually lived in the apartment.
Along with this, the district court decided that all other determinations and factual and legal findings of the Magistrate's Court will remain as they are, including in relation to the analysis of the contractual liability of the spouses.
The supreme court reverses the decision
As a result, the parents decided to submit a request for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In this court, the decision was overturned and the claims of the couple were accepted - while the claim against them was rejected in full.
The three supreme judges ruled that once the relief regarding the eviction against one of the defendants is revoked, the claim against that party must be dismissed in its entirety, and therefore all the factual and legal findings against him must also be dismissed.
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that all determinations and findings regarding the parents' responsibility for the son's invasion and failure to vacate the apartment are null and void.
Attorney Omri Badash, who represented the couple in the case, explained: "The district court created an absurd situation in which the only remedy that was requested was rejected, but all the determinations and findings that led to its acceptance remained intact.
And worse, the claim is not dismissed on its merits.
The Supreme Court accepted the arguments of the appellants in full, and determined that the rejection of the only remedy requested requires the rejection of the lawsuit with all its implications, with an emphasis on the rejection of all the findings that were ruled to be the duty of the appellants.
The Supreme Court clarified that the legal result reached by the district is not recognized and is not possible in law."
Real estate
Tags
rent
