Whose Beis Din?

For three years, the Sorschers had enjoyed their furnished attic apartment, rented from Mr. Rubin. The cozy apartment had become home, and the rental arrangement had proceeded smoothly, other than a one-time incident of water damage from an open window. They paid on time and had a good relationship with Mr. Rubin.

Eventually, however, the Sorschers decided to move to another city.

Shortly after they vacated the apartment, Mr. Rubin entered to prepare it for the next tenants. He was disappointed to discover that some small appliances no longer worked properly and several pieces of furniture had sustained damage.

“The apartment was in good condition when they moved in,” he thought to himself, inspecting the damage. “How did all this happen?”

Mr. Rubin contacted Mr. Sorscher and requested that they compensate him for the repairs and replacements.

“The faulty appliances you mentioned stopped working during normal use,” Mr. Sorscher replied. “We simply bought new ones that we took with us. Any damage to the furniture is due to normal wear and tear.”

“It doesn’t look that way to me,” insisted Mr. Rubin. “I’d like the local beis din to hear the case and settle the matter.”

“I’m certainly willing to have the case adjudicated in beis din,” Mr. Sorscher said, “but I now live in another city. I shouldn’t have to travel back just to explain to you why I don’t have to pay. We can adjudicate in my local beis din.”

Mr. Rubin was taken aback. “But the apartment is here!” he replied. “The rental agreement was made here, and the damage you’re disputing occurred here. Why should I have to travel to your new city?”

Mr. Sorscher had an answer ready.

“There’s a well-known rule in Choshen Mishpat,” he argued, “that the plaintiff follows the defendant. You’re bringing the claim against me and want me to pay, so you should come to my city.”

“That may be the general rule,” countered Mr. Rubin, “but we both lived here during the period in question. You chose to move, so why should I have to travel?”

“So what?” replied Mr. Sorscher. “I live here now, and I’m the defendant.”

Unable to resolve the question, the two approached Rabbi Dayan and asked:

“Where should the case be adjudicated?”

“Rema rules that if the plaintiff and defendant live in different cities, generally the plaintiff must follow the defendant,” replied Rabbi Dayan (C.M. 14:1).

“GR”A (14:18) explains simply that since the plaintiff is interested in pursuing the case, he must make the effort to go.

Many explain, though, that in principle, the borrower should follow the lender (based on Sanhedrin 31b); however, later generations instituted the rule that the plaintiff follows the defendant. This was to prevent people from frivolously suing a wealthy person from another town in the hope that he would settle to avoid having to travel. Furthermore, this would avoid arguments over whose beis din is greater. Also, the defendant’s local beis din is likely more effective in forcing him to pay if he is found liable (Knesses Hagedolah, Hagahos Hatur 14:21).

Nonetheless, Acharonim rule that when both parties initially lived in the same city and conducted business there, but afterward the defendant moved to a distant location, the dispute should be adjudicated in the city where they lived and conducted the transaction in question. In this case, the clear understanding between the parties is that any dispute will be settled there (Maharashdam C.M. #103).

Moreover, some maintain that when a business is based in a certain city, disputes regarding the business should be adjudicated there, even if the defendant did not initially live there. Here also, the presumed intent is that disputes should be settled in the place of business. Furthermore, the necessary factual investigation and witnesses are likely located there (Divrei Malkiel 3:167).

Accordingly, when someone rents an apartment and subsequently moves elsewhere, should a dispute arise, the tenant is required to return to the landlord’s locale. In the case of a short-term rental, however, such as a summer home or weekend rental, where it is initially known that the renter will return to his hometown, it is questionable where the dispute should be adjudicated (Seder Hadin, Derbermedikar 2:24[56]).

“Thus,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “your case should be adjudicated in Mr. Rubin’s locale.”

Verdict: The general practice is that the plaintiff follows the defendant. However, when the parties lived in the same city and conducted the business in question there and the defendant moved, he must return to the plaintiff’s locale to adjudicate any dispute.