I have a financial claim against a client. In bringing him to a din Torah, I anticipate I will incur expenses.

Q: If I win the judgment, can the defendant be compelled to reimburse me for those costs so that I should be able to recover all the money owed to me? Also, if it is necessary to go to a secular court to enforce beis din’s judgment, can I collect my court costs from the defendant?

A: Generally, a plaintiff cannot demand reimbursement for the expenses involved in bringing a din Torah (C.M. 14:5). Since the defendant believes that he does not owe any money, he has the right to refuse to pay until beis din rules that he is obligated to do so. However, if the defendant knows that he owes the money and lies to avoid paying his debt, or if he employs stalling tactics to see if he can wear down the plaintiff, he is morally obligated to cover the plaintiff’s expenses.

(See Yeshuos Yisrael 14:4, whether beis din can force him to pay those expenses as well.)

If a defendant refuses to comply with beis din’s decision, the plaintiff can ask permission from beis din to bring the matter to secular court for reinforcement. Generally, as long as beis din followed standard arbitration guidelines, the courts will affirm its ruling, but most often one needs to hire a lawyer for this. If the plaintiff received permission from beis din to go to court for enforcement of its decision, the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for those expenses. Although those expenses are an indirect consequence of the defendant’s refusal to comply with beis din’s ruling (grama), nevertheless, the principle of hefker beis din hefker applies, and beis din can obligate the defendant to cover those expenses (C.M. 14:5 and shu”t Rema 108).

It must be noted that it is worthwhile for the arbitration agreement (shtar birurin) to contain a clause that states that if the defendant does not comply with beis din’s decision and the plaintiff has to bring the matter to court, the defendant will be responsible to cover the expenses involved.

In the event that this clause is not included, the courts might not obligate the defendant to cover those expenses.  Therefore, a plaintiff who is concerned that the defendant will not comply with beis din’s ruling if he loses the case should insist that the beis din include this clause in the arbitration agreement.

Q: A neighbor’s dog entered my yard. It trod on plants and chewed some rubber toys. Is the owner liable?

A: A person is liable for these two forms of damage done by his animal:

1) Regel refers to damage done by the animal in the course of normal walking, such as stepping on something or knocking it over. It also applies to damage done by items attached to the animal, such as a leash, saddle, or cart (C.M. 390:1). If while walking the animal kicked pebbles that caused damage, there is an oral tradition (halacha l’Moshe miSinai) that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage (390:3).

2) Shen refers to damage that the animal does for its enjoyment, such as eating, rubbing against a fence, or rolling on plants (391:1).

A person is not liable for regel and shen damage occurring in a public domain, but only for damage done to or on a victim’s property. If the animal ate in a public domain, the owner needs to pay only the amount of the minimal benefit that his animal is normally fed (390:2-3; 391:7-8).

Beis din is authorized even today to adjudicate cases of regel and shen, since they are common forms of damage that entail loss of capital (C.M. 1:3).