Paying for a Balcony You Later Benefit From

Le'Chvod, HaGaon Dayan Amram Fried shlit”aReuven lives on the first floor and has a large sukkah balcony, about 5×3 meters. It isn’t hanging, but built on solid concrete pillars, and it was part of the original building from the contractor.Later, Shimon and some of the neighbors wanted to build rooms above it. Reuven didn’t want to build himself, but he agreed on condition that they would give him a small balcony jutting out instead. They went ahead and built him a hanging balcony. At the same time, they also put a ceiling over his sukkah balcony — but with no walls, so it stayed an open porch.A couple of years later, Reuven changed his mind. For various reasons he now wanted to close off the old balcony with walls and turn it into a room.Here’s where the issue comes up:Shimon and the neighbors had paid 25,000 shekels for the small hanging balcony they gave Reuven.They also paid another 25,000 shekels for waterproofing (itum) and a concrete slope (batkal) on Reuven’s original balcony, since while building they had to drill into it and ruined the old waterproofing. Because it was open and rain got in, they had to redo everything.Now, when Reuven decided to enclose the balcony, he had to rip all that out, the tiles, the raised floor, the waterproofing, since it was built up 20 cm higher and created a step inside his house. But once it’s enclosed with walls, he doesn’t need waterproofing at all.If Reuven had built the hanging balcony himself back then, it would have cost him only 25,000, with no waterproofing. And today, with prices having gone up, building such a balcony alone would cost about 50,000 even without waterproofing.The claims:Reuven says: I should only have to pay 25,000. The rule is you only pay what construction cost at the time, not the higher prices later. The waterproofing was useless to me, and if I had built on my own, I never would have done it.Shimon says: You couldn’t have had your balcony without the waterproofing. It was part of the whole job, and you benefited from what we did.Reuven replies: The waterproofing was only for them, so they could build their rooms. I never cared if they built or not. I should only pay for what I personally gained — the hanging balcony.Further point: Reuven also says: I had to pay again to break all the tiles and remove the raised concrete because of the waterproofing they put in. That demolition alone cost me about 25,000. So in the end, I don’t owe them anything, even though the hanging balcony was worth 25,000, I had to spend the same amount to undo the damage their waterproofing caused me.So does;Reuven pay 50,000 (balcony plus waterproofing).Reuven pay 25,000 (balcony only, not waterproofing).Reuven pays nothing, since his demolition costs canceled out his benefit.The question: What is the halachic ruling in this situation?With respect and blessing, Eliezer HaLevi

Ruling of the Beis Hora’ah:

Balcony above: The neighbors originally had no right to build above Reuven, since they were obligated to allow him a sukkah balcony. When Reuven agreed to let them build in exchange for a small hanging balcony, that was like selling his right therefore, he is exempt from paying for it.

Waterproofing and related works: At the time, they were obligated to do waterproofing and whatever was necessary because of their own construction. Therefore, Reuven has no obligation to pay for these, even if he later destroyed them when enclosing his balcony.

Benefit from the ceiling (the structural frame): Reuven does have an obligation of neheneh (benefiting) for the structural ceiling they built, since he now uses it when enclosing his old balcony. However, this applies only to the basic structure (the ceiling itself), not the extra waterproofing.

To Summarize: He must pay for the benefit he now receives from the ceiling, calculated based on the original costs, adjusted to today’s value using the cost-of-living index, but not according to current market prices.