Mr. Lowy hired a woman to clean his bungalow home before his family arrived upstate. “I’ll text you the address,” Mr. Lowy told her. “You can get a key from the caretaker; he has a master key for all the bungalows. I’ll pay you tomorrow when I arrive.”
The next day, the Lowy’s arrived and found a filthy bungalow home. Mr. Lowy called the woman immediately and asked, “Were you here yesterday? It doesn’t look like the house was cleaned at all.”
“I don’t understand,” said the woman. “I was there all day. I left the house spic and span!”
“There must be some mistake,” Mr. Lowy said. “Which house did you clean?”
“Let me look at the message,” said the woman. “Number 24, you wrote.”
“Oh, I meant number 25,” said Mr. Lowy.
The woman still wished to be paid, though. Mr. Lowy agreed that she should be paid but thought the owners of house #25 – the Singers – should pay her. The Singers, however, while they appreciated their clean home, said they couldn’t spare the $150 and had planned on cleaning their home themselves.
Mr. Lowy and Mr. Singer came before Rabbi Dayan who responded as follows after hearing the case:
“The Gemara [Bava Metzia 76a] states that if someone instructed an employee to work in his neighbor’s property, the employer is liable to pay the person’s salary. However, he can demand reimbursement from the neighbor for the benefit he received.” [Choshen Mishpat 336:1]
“But I didn’t ask for my house to be cleaned,” argued Mr. Singer. “Why should I have to pay anything?”
“A person who enhances another’s property, even without being instructed to, is entitled to compensation,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “The amount of compensation due – whether the full value or just expenditures – depends on whether the improvement was warranted.” [Choshen Mishpat 375:4]
“The house needed cleaning,” acknowledged Mr. Singer, “but we always clean it ourselves.”
“If the owner typically does the work himself,” said Rabbi Dayan, “even when the work is warranted, we merely evaluate how much it is worth to the owner not to have to toil.” [Rema 375:4]
“Even so,” continued Rabbi Dayan, “in this case, Mr. Singer can refuse to compensate Mr. Lowy for two reasons.”
“Why is that?” asked Mr. Lowy.
“Some authorities maintain that the rule – commonly referred to as ‘yored l’toch sedei chaveiro’ – applies only when the person knowingly improves his neighbor’s property,” Rabbi Dayan replied. “However, if the person did the work thinking the property was his, the neighbor is not required to pay. [Nesivos 236:7]
“Furthermore, some write that unessential enhanced-appearance jobs, such as whitewashing, are not considered capital improvements that require compensation. Certainly, routine cleaning is not a capital improvement since the house will get dirty again shortly. [Rema 375:7; Shach 391:2]
“Thus,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “Mr. Singer is not required to compensate Mr. Lowy for the cleaning.”