Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2813-12T3
07-03-2014
LAURA LAGUDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELIZABETH KARR, Defendant-Respondent.
Daniel B. Shapiro, attorney for appellant. Farkas & Donohue, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Guy M. Magnusson, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Hoffman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Morris County, Docket No. DC-6564-12.
Daniel B. Shapiro, attorney for appellant.
Farkas & Donohue, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Guy M. Magnusson, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
In this tenancy dispute, following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, Laura Lagudi, against her former landlord, defendant, Elizabeth Karr. The court awarded plaintiff $2100 for defendant's failure to return her security deposit, plus $57 in costs. The court dismissed plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of relocation expenses, resulting in the present appeal, limited to the denial of relocation expenses to her. The court found plaintiff failed to satisfy the conditions for such relief. On appeal, plaintiff contends she was entitled to six times the rent, plus interest, in relocation assistance for her displacement, claiming the flooding in her basement apartment was not a bar to recovery of relocation expenses, and "correcting an illegal occupancy . . . by going through zoning and plan review is unfeasible and supportable in reality."
We have considered the arguments advanced in light of the record and applicable legal principles. We affirm the judgment entered for the reasons expressed by Judge David H. Ironson in his January 11, 2013 written statement of reasons.
On December 18, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, asserting, among other claims, that she was displaced as a result of an illegal occupancy in a single-family residence, where she resided in the basement. Plaintiff claimed that she was a tenant, had signed a written lease, and paid a $1050 security deposit. Defendant, however, claimed that plaintiff was a boarder.
At trial, neither party produced a written lease. In its subsequent findings, the court found the parties had entered into an oral lease, and also credited plaintiff's testimony that she provided a security deposit, noting that the cancelled check admitted into evidence bore the notation "security deposit."
According to plaintiff's testimony, on March 15, 2012, she noticed a strong odor, leading to her discovery of water under the carpet. She vacated the premises while repairs were undertaken, and moved to a hotel. She contacted local Kinnelon officials to express concerns for the conditions to which she had been exposed, and learned that the premises were not lawful because basement apartments were not authorized. Plaintiff returned to the premises to retrieve her personal property, which she placed in storage, but left a couch, which sustained damage from the chemicals used in remediating the basement. Plaintiff stated she remained in a hotel, while looking for new housing, from March 17, 2012 to July 7, 2012, incurring $10,229.90 in costs, in addition to $888.70 in relocation expenses, the loss of a couch valued at $706.14, as well as the loss of prepaid rent in the amount of $542.
The Kinnelon official with whom plaintiff spoke also testified and confirmed that he spoke with plaintiff about the premises. He stated that it was plaintiff who inquired whether the premises she was occupying was legal. He told her that basement apartments were not permitted occupancies and, on March 30, 2012, issued two citations to defendant. One citation charged defendant with failure to obtain the required permits, and the second citation charged her with illegal occupancy.
In her testimony, defendant stated that although plaintiff resided in the basement, she had complete access to the entire home. In addition, when the basement was undergoing remediation, she told plaintiff that she could sleep in one of the bedrooms upstairs. She explained that her home has four bedrooms, and it was just she and her daughter living in the home, so there was no problem with plaintiff living upstairs while the repairs were being made. Defendant stated plaintiff voluntarily left the premises, writing a letter to her in which she explained that she was leaving for health reasons.
In finding that plaintiff was not entitled to statutory relocation expenses, the court noted that both plaintiff and defendant testified that she left the premises voluntarily. The court credited defendant's testimony that she offered plaintiff one of the bedrooms upstairs, an offer she declined to accept. Thus, the court concluded the "credible evidence demonstrates that [p]laintiff was not displaced by the landlord or owner in order to correct an illegal occupancy, but rather that [p]laintiff voluntarily vacated the premises despite being afforded the opportunity to stay in an upstairs bedroom." The court additionally noted that plaintiff vacated the premises prior to defendant being cited for municipal violations related to the premises. Finally, the court found it was not necessary for plaintiff to be removed to correct the illegal occupancy.
N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(h)(a) provides:
If a residential tenant is displaced because of an illegal occupancy in a residential rental premises . . . the displaced residential tenant shall be entitled to reimbursement for relocation expenses from the owner in an amount equal to six times the monthly rental paid by the displaced person.
The question of whether the court erred in concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement for relocation expenses is a question of law, which we review de novo and accord no deference to the trial court's interpretation of the legal principles governing this dispute. Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Here, however, we are in complete agreement with the trial court's analysis and application of the law.
It is undisputed that at the time plaintiff left the premises, an illegal occupancy existed. However, at the time plaintiff vacated the premises, defendant had not been cited for any violations. Thus, plaintiff did not vacate the premises in order for defendant to correct the illegal occupancy. Plaintiff voluntarily left the premises. Finally, there is no evidence in the record that it was unfeasible to correct the illegal occupancy without plaintiff being removed from the premises. The court credited the testimony that plaintiff was offered the use of the upstairs bedroom while the repairs were being undertaken. Because plaintiff does not meet the statutory definition of a displaced tenant, the court did not err in dismissing this claim for relief by plaintiff.
The remaining arguments advanced by plaintiff are without sufficient merit to warrant to discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION