An apartment owner in a condominium repaired a defect in the sealing of the roof of the condominium during the summer months, as a preventive measure, in view of her desire to sell the apartment without active leaks in the future. The apartment owner demanded that the condominium representative indemnify her for the money she spent to repair the defect.
The Supervisor of Condominiums rejected the claim and held that the apartment owner was not entitled to a refund for the money, inter alia, as there was no urgent need for repair. Pursuant to Israeli law, an apartment owner is entitled to demand indemnification from the condominium representative in connection with work it performed on the condominium, subject to the fulfillment of six conditions: (1) The defect that was treated is a defect in the common property of the condominium, in which the condominium representative was required to repair at its expense; (2) A preliminary approach was made to the condominium representative, which refused to carry out the repair; (3) A delay in carrying out the repair would have led to a significant aggravation of the damage; (4) The necessity of the repair must be proven so that failure to carry out the repair promptly will clearly and severely impair the tenant’s ability to make use of its apartment; (5) It is required that the defect fixed by the apartment owner be duly fixed; and (6) the cost of the repair must be taken into account in two respects: first, the more significant the expense, the greater the burden on the apartment owner in an indemnity ruling in its favor; Second, an apartment owner will not be indemnified for unreasonable expenses. Here, the condominium representative refused the apartment owner’s demand to carry out the work and the cost of the requested repair was reasonable. However, there was no urgent need for the repair and there was no concern of unexpected material damage that would be caused to the apartment if the repair was not carried out immediately, inter alia, because the apartment owner continued to live in the apartment throughout the years despite leaks that occurred from time to time during the rainy seasons. Therefore, the apartment owner should have taken legal action against the condominium representative, and she was not entitled to carry out the work herself and to be entitled to a refund for the money she spent as a result.