New Jersey landlord-tenant actions (a/k/a “summary dispossession actions”) are designed to be quick, efficient methods of disposing of landlord-tenant disputes. The efficiency of a landlord-tenant case lies in the prohibition of responsive pleadings and the “No Discovery” rule. NJ Court Rule 6:4-3 provides that interrogatories and other discovery methods are applicable in all actions except “summary landlord and tenant actions for recovery of the premises.” The “No Discovery” rule poses a problem for landlords alleging wrongful conduct (for example, damage to the apartment or violation of lease rules) by the tenant. How does a landlord prove wrongful conduct? How does a tenant defend against an allegation of wrongful conduct?
Continue Reading ›

New Jersey landlord-tenant relationships are controlled by applicable statutes (the Anti-Eviction Act, NJSA 2A:18-61.1 et. seq., or NJSA 2A:18-53) and the terms of the lease. Lease terms are interpreted by typical contractual principles. The most basic contractual principle requires that agreements be supported by consideration (a legal term for something of value given to support a contract). In a landlord-tenant context, the tenant’s payment of rent is consideration for the landlord providing a habitable apartment. For tenants living in illegal apartments, the analysis could be much different. By renting an illegal apartment, the landlord may have failed to provide consideration required by the contract. In these cases, the tenant may be entitled to a refund of all rent paid.
Continue Reading ›

New Jersey’s Security Deposit Law, N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1, requires strict compliance by Landlords. The law’s most rigid requirement is the timing of the return of the deposit. As soon as a tenancy ends, a landlord should be prepared to follow the precise letter of the law. Even an honest mistake can lead to an award of double the security deposit and attorney’s fee’s against the landlord.
Continue Reading ›

New Jersey’s Security Deposit Law (NJSA 46:8-19) is one of the more tenant-friendly security deposit laws in the US. The Law requires strict compliance (almost to the letter) with each of its parts. Failing to follow the law, in detail, can expose a Landlord to a penalty of double the security deposit and attorney’s fees. Landlords and Tenants should be aware of the most common area of noncompliance: Unauthorized deductions.
Continue Reading ›

A prior post explained that under the Anti-Eviction Act rent increases are subject to a five-part test. Even though landlord-tenant trials can be simple and speedy, the Rules of Evidence still apply. Landlords must present competent evidence supporting their right to a rent increase. The types of evidence may vary, but should generally be in line with evidence offered in Fromet Properties, Inc. vs. Delores Buel, et al, 294 N.J. Super. 601 (App. Div. 1996).
Continue Reading ›

Anti-Eviction tenancies are subject to rent increase on notice. This means a landlord must serve a tenant notice increasing the rent for the subsequent tenancy. But, simply serving the notice as required by the Anti-Eviction Act doesn’t mean that the rent increase is legal. For a rent increase to be legal it must not unconscionable. Whether a rent increase is unconscionable turns on a five-part test.
Continue Reading ›

New Jersey tenants are protected by the Anti-Eviction Act (NJSA 2A:18-61.1) and the Consumer Fraud Act (NJSA 56:8-1 et. seq.). Pursuant to Anti-Eviction Act, tenants living in illegal apartments are entitled a statutory relocation benefit of six times the monthly rent (NJSA 2A:18-61.1(g)(2) & NJSA 2A:18-61.1h). On the Consumer Fraud Act side, consumers are protected from unconscionable commercial practices which cause the consumer to suffer an “ascertainable loss.” Violations of the Consumer Fraud Act can trigger a consumer’s right to triple damages; an enhancing remedy in line with the relocation benefit. In the context of illegal apartments, can the Consumer Fraud Act and Anti-Eviction Act combine to give tenants two equally powerful remedies? The answer turns on how the damage to the tenant is characterized.
Continue Reading ›

The Jersey City Rent Control Ordinance requires landlords to provide new tenants with specific information. At the start of each new tenancy a landlord must provide a tenant with a “rental statement” that informs of the tenant of “rent of the prior tenant and notification of the existence of the rent registration law.” The point is pretty simple: If a new tenant finds out her rent is three times what the old tenant paid, she’s more likely to question the legality of the rent. An interesting question presented itself a few weeks ago: What if the owner was the “prior tenant?” What notice is a tenant occupying an apartment after the owner entitled to?
Continue Reading ›

Northern New Jersey cities like Hoboken and Jersey City maintain sophisticated rent control ordinances. Rent control ordinances are designed to provide landlord’s a “fair” return on investment while keeping urban housing rents affordable. When a tenant is charged an illegal rent (a rent in excess of what rent control ordinance provides) most ordinances require a landlord to give the tenant a credit towards future rent. The credit is the amount of the overcharge per month for as many months as the tenant was overcharged. But, the time length of the overcharge is not unlimited. Jersey City and Hoboken have two very different approaches to determining the amount of a rent control overcharge. The distinction lies in the difference between a statute of limitation and a statute of repose.
Continue Reading ›

Local rent control laws are an important part of maintaining an affordable housing supply in densely populated areas. Prior posts explained the basics of rent control and some nuances between cities. Generally, tenants who pay rent in excess of the rent control rent (the “legal rent”) have two remedies. The first is an application to the local rent control board (sometimes called a rent leveling board) for a credit. The credit allows a tenant to pay a reduced rent going forward until the tenant “catches up” with the overcharge. The second remedy is much more powerful. Violations of rent control ordinances are actionable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”). Under the CFA, a rent control overcharge may entitle a tenant to triple damages and mandatory attorney’s fees. The principle that a rent control violation is also a consumer fraud violation comes from an Appellate Division decision called Wozniak v. Pennella, 373 N.J. Super. 445 (App. Div. 2004).
Continue Reading ›

Contact Information