Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2766-12T1
09-12-2014
JENNIFER SAPERSTEIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STEPHEN and DELIA MARGIOTTA, Defendants-Appellants.
Mark E. Margiotta, attorney for appellants. Respondent has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Union County, Docket No. SC-1747-12. Mark E. Margiotta, attorney for appellants. Respondent has not filed a brief. The opinion of the court was delivered by FUENTES, P.J.A.D.
Defendants Stephen Margiotta and Delia Margiotta appealed from the judgment of the Law Division, Special Civil Part, Division of Small Claims finding defendants wrongfully withheld a portion of the security deposit given by plaintiff Jennifer Saperstein at the inception of her tenancy. See N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.4. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1, the court doubled the amount allegedly wrongfully withheld, and entered judgment against defendants in the amount $3,723.60. We reverse.
Defendants leased to plaintiff a one-family residence located in the Township of Scotch Plains. The parties signed the lease document on August 18, 2011, indicating the one year term under the lease began on September 1, 2011, and ended on August 31, 2012. The monthly rent was $2,800, and plaintiff gave defendants $4,200 as a security deposit as authorized under N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.2. Plaintiff vacated the property at the end of the lease term.
By letter dated September 28, 2012, defendants confirmed to plaintiff that the original $4,200 security deposit had been deposited into a bank account earning .08% interest, which amounted to $33.60 during the one year term of the lease. The $33.60 interest was added to the original $4,200 security deposit, resulting in a total of $4,233.60. From this figure, defendants deducted $2,411.80, representing the cost they incurred to restore the property to the condition it was in at the time of the commencement of the lease term.
Defendants included in the letter the following itemized list of repairs and corresponding costs:
(1) Removal of screws/window treatment/window treatment hardware and repair/painting touch-up of each area (master bedroom, front bedroom,Defendants enclosed a check payable to plaintiff in the amount of $1,821.80; ($4,200 security deposit + $33.60 interest accrued - $2,411.80 in repair cost = $1,821.80).
rear bedroom, living room, dining room, family room, entry hallway) . . . $250.00
(2) Replace trim on top of windows front bedroom (damaged by window treatment hardware) . . . $75.00
(3) Wash exterior of house on east side (mildew) . . . $50.00
(4) Cracked tile in main bathroom (2nd floor) . . . $50.00
(5) Clean walk-in shower master bath (mildew) . . . $25.00
(6) Cracked wood door threshold (kitchen/dining room) . . . $75.00
(7) Broken window pane in basement . . . $25.00
(8) Exterior landscaping (see invoice enclosed) . . . $1,861.80.
On October 23, 2012, plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging the $1,861.80 deduction for exterior landscaping was wrongfully withheld in violation of the provisions of N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1. The dispute came before the Special Civil Part as a Small Claims case. Plaintiff appeared pro se and defendants were represented by counsel. Plaintiff argued that the part of the security deposit retained by defendants for the restoration of the lawn was excessive because the lawn was in good condition at the end of the lease term.
Defendants argued plaintiff was required under the lease agreement to maintain the lawn. Specifically, paragraph twelve of the lease agreement made plaintiff "responsible for maintaining the lawn, shrubs, weeding and trees and removing leaves." Under the heading "Tenant's Repairs and [Maintenance]," paragraph thirteen made plaintiff "liable for the cost of repairing all damage caused by the Tenant's act or neglect." Under subsection (b) plaintff was required to "[k]eep and maintain the [p]remises and grounds in neat, clean, safe and sanitary condition." Mr. Margiotta testified that he and his wife had resided in this house for nearly thirty years before they were forced to rent it due to their personal mobility problems.
Mr. Margiotta emphasized that he had a landscaper on retainer when he and his wife resided in the house; he also presented the trial judge with photographs of the condition of the lawn, bushes, and general landscaping of the property at the time they rented the house to plaintiff. The judge also reviewed the itemized bill paid by defendants that documented the work performed by the landscaper to restore the property to its original condition, as depicted in the photographs presented by Mr. Margiotta.
Despite this evidence, and the specific provisions in the lease, the trial judge held in favor plaintiff. The judge made the following findings in support of his ruling:
To me, the taking care of the landscape of this property had nothing to do with security. Other than them having to cut the grass every week when the grass grew and making sure that there wasn't some kind of a stump of a tree blocking something -- the driveway or something of that nature, that was the extent of their duties, even under this lease.
There's another provision of the law that's -- that I have to deal with in this case. And, it was too bad that no one understood this provision of the law. When you file your small claims court complaint, you should know the law to some extent too.
Now, under the law, any monies that are held over by the landlord wrongfully have to be doubled. You didn't say anything about (sic) your complaint about doubling it, and it's my obligation as the Judge, because the law says that I have to tell you that.
So, if monies were withheld wrongfully, then those monies have to be doubled. It's . . . a sad situation, especially when this case should have been mediated and resolved. That's why we have mediation in this court, but that wasn't done.
I believe -- and, as I look at this bill – and, what's troubling to me is this whole bill from the landscaper. This bill totaled -- and, I'm trying to find a total here -- $1,861.80. And, it concerns pruning trees; crown clean and thin four trees back, five trees front, left and ride [sic] side; remove dead, broken, and hanging limbs, 11 and a half diameter and larger; cut back
from house as needed, and thin crossed and rubbing limbs for airflow; chip and remove debris, $1295.
Mulch, weed front foundation beds and saucers; re-edge and install ground hardwood mulch; remove debris. Subtotal $1,740. Sales tax, $121.80. Total, $1,861.80.
I find that the $1,861.80 should have not been deducted from the security deposit, as simply as that. And, under the law, I have no other thing to do but to double that amount. Two times 1,861.80 comes out to $3,723.60. I find in favor of the plaintiff in that amount with court costs of $31. So be it.
N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 provides, in relevant part:
Within 30 days after the termination of the tenant's lease or licensee's agreement, the owner or lessee shall return by personal delivery, registered or certified mail the sum so deposited plus the tenant's portion of the interest or earnings accumulated thereon, less any charges expended in accordance with the terms of a contract, lease, or agreement . . . . (Emphasis added).
Here, the lease agreement specifically obligated plaintiff to maintain the lawn, shrubs, weeding and trees and remove all leaves. The plaintiff was "liable for the cost of repairing all damage caused by the [plaintiff's] act or neglect." The lease required plaintiff to "[k]eep and maintain the [p]remises and grounds in neat, clean, safe and sanitary condition." Defendant testified as to the condition of the property when it was delivered to the plaintiff at the inception of the tenancy. Plaintiff did not provide competent evidence to rebut defendant's testimony.
The trial judge's personal characterization of the obligations imposed on the tenant by the lease agreement is not supported by the evidence. This property is a one-family residence that defendants occupied as their home for nearly thirty years. The terms of the lease agreement, freely and voluntarily entered into by plaintiff, reflect defendants' concerns that the tenant be obligated to maintain the landscaping and general condition of the lawn.
In Reilly v. Weiss, 406 N.J. Super. 71, 79-81 (App. Div. 2009), we noted that under N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 the remedy doubling the amount withheld by the landlord is not warranted, even when the landlord violates the provisions of the Security Deposit Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8-19 to -26, "if in fact the tenant has violated his obligations under the lease." Here, defendants complied with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 by providing plaintiff, within thirty days of the termination of the tenancy, an itemized list of the charges in accordance with the lease agreement.
Reversed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION