Parkway, Inc. v. Mabel Briggs Curry

Citations: 392 A.2d 1260; 162 N.J. Super. 410; 1978 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1354

Court: New Jersey Superior Court; September 11, 1978; New Jersey; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case concerns whether the defendant’s failure to pay double rent, as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 for not vacating the premises after receiving a notice to quit, is a valid basis for eviction under New Jersey's summary dispossess statutes. N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 mandates that tenants pay double rent for holding over after notice, while the Anti-Eviction Act allows tenants to remain indefinitely as long as they comply with lease terms and do not engage in destructive or disorderly behavior. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's refusal to pay the double rent constitutes grounds for eviction as per N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(a), which recognizes non-payment of rent as "good cause" for eviction. However, the defendant claims the notice to quit was improperly served, therefore not terminating her tenancy, and contends that the penalty is not "rent" as defined in the eviction statute. Additionally, she asserts that the penalty was impliedly repealed by the Anti-Eviction Act. The factual background indicates that the defendant entered into a two-year lease in 1974, continued on a month-to-month basis after its expiration, and eventually notified the plaintiff of her intention to vacate, which she later attempted to revoke. The plaintiff refused her request, leading to the eviction action.

A judge from the Essex County District Court dismissed a landlord's complaint, determining that the grounds cited for evicting a holdover tenant were not covered under the statutory framework of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1, which does not authorize summary eviction for holdover tenants. The judge did not address whether a holdover tenant's failure to pay a penalty under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 permits summary eviction. Following this, the landlord's attorney notified the tenant of a rent increase to $390 due to her holdover status and included a copy of N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5. The plaintiff received a partial rent payment of $195 but claimed the tenant owed an additional $195. The tenant argued the notice to terminate her tenancy was invalid as it lacked a full month's notice, making the double rent penalty inapplicable. However, the court found that the plaintiff waived this defect in the notice. The tenant also contended that the penalty under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 was not considered "rent due and owing" as defined in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(a), asserting it constituted a statutory penalty. The statute, which mandates double rent for tenants who fail to adhere to a notice of intent to vacate, has historical roots but has seen limited application in case law. The legislative intent behind the 1974 amendments to summary dispossess statutes significantly altered the eviction process for residential tenants, requiring "good cause" for eviction and limiting landlords' rights to terminate leases based solely on notices. These amendments effectively transformed the eviction landscape, favoring tenant stability unless lease obligations are violated.

Public interest under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 conflicts with the 1974 amendments to eviction laws, as the summary dispossess remedy was designed to circumvent tenant delays in eviction proceedings. The landlord's ability to evict is strictly statutory, necessitating a clear distinction between common law rights and statutory privileges. The term "rent due and owing under the lease" in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(a) lacks a defined meaning in the Anti-Eviction Act, suggesting it should reflect common understandings of rent and lease as consensual agreements. N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 imposes a penalty for non-compliance with eviction notices, which cannot be classified as rent. A strict interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(a) aligns with the legislative intent acknowledging a housing emergency in New Jersey. Including penalties as rent would contradict other 1974 amendments, such as N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f), which allows dismissal of eviction proceedings for unconscionable rent increases. Historical context indicates a strict reading of eviction statutes is necessary, and courts have previously rejected the application of double rent penalties in related cases, such as Ricci v. Claire.

Defendant argued that the penalty under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 conflicted with federal price control regulations established by the Emergency Price Control Act. The court concurred, ruling that enforcing the state statute requiring the payment of a double rent penalty would contradict federal regulations and undermine the enforcement of the Emergency Price Control Act. Additionally, the court noted that applying the double rent penalty under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 would violate the principles of the Anti-Eviction Act, deeming such a rent increase excessively harsh and unconscionable under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f). The court determined that the liability imposed by N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 does not qualify as "rent due and owing under the lease," negating the need to address the defendant's alternative argument regarding the implied repeal of N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 by subsequent legislative amendments. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's challenges, recognizing that while the defendant failed to follow proper notice procedures, the plaintiff could seek damages through a civil suit and enforce a judgment if obtained.

The ruling prohibits the landlord from employing the summary dispossess remedy based on the specific circumstances of the case. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5, if a tenant notifies their intent to vacate but does not leave as specified, they must pay double rent from the notice date until they vacate. This provision applies during a periodical tenancy when a tenant holds over. The 60-day notice requirement is rendered moot as the written lease has expired, and the tenant may waive any notice requirement. N.J.S.A. 2A:42-5 and N.J.S.A. 2A:42-6 both stem from historical statutes and impose penalties for tenants who fail to comply with eviction notices. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 excludes certain properties, such as owner-occupied residences with fewer than three rental units, from its provisions. Additionally, recent case law suggests landlords are not required to use summary dispossess remedies for hotel guests. The court does not determine whether the plaintiff can pursue an ejectment action under N.J.S.A. 2A:35-1.