NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0102-19T1
HILTON GARDENS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANNA UJHELYOVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted April 22, 2020 – Decided May 8, 2020
Before Judges Fuentes and Haas.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Union County, Docket No. LT-003850-19.
Brian T. Kernan, attorney for appellant.
Jeffrey J. Chornoboy, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
In this residential tenancy action, defendant Anna Ujhelyova appeals from
the September 4, 2019 Special Civil Part order enforcing the terms of a
settlement agreement defendant previously reached with her landlord, plaintiff
Hilton Gardens, LLC. The order required defendant to vacate her current
apartment and move to a new one within two weeks, or pay the rent on both
units if she failed to do so. Because the court exceeded its jurisdiction under the
Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 to -61.12, by granting plaintiff this
equitable relief, we reverse.
The facts are straightforward and not in dispute. Defendant lived in
Apartment A4 in plaintiff's building. The monthly rent was $1025.
On May 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a summary dispossess action against
defendant for non-payment of rent. In response, defendant raised a Marini1
defense, and paid $2653.25 into the court's escrow account. The court scheduled
the trial for June 27, 2019.
On that date, defendant appeared with counsel and the parties negotiated
a settlement. Defendant agreed to relocate to Apartment C7 on July 10, 2019,
after plaintiff finished painting it. The monthly rent for this unit was $1350.
The parties also agreed that $2101.25 of the escrow funds would be paid to
1
Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130 (1970) (holding that the breach of an implied
warranty of habitability or covenant to repair may be used by a tenant as a
defense in an eviction action based upon non-payment of rent where defects
have been asserted as a basis for withholding of rental payments). Here,
defendant claimed she was withholding rent because plaintiff failed to address
a mold problem in the apartment.
A-0102-19T1
2
plaintiff, with the remaining $552 being returned to defendant. The judge
reviewed the terms of the agreement on the record with defendant, and
concluded that she understood them and was voluntarily resolving the matter.
The judge marked the matter as "settled." Thereafter, the parties did not
enter into a lease for Apartment C7.
Defendant did not move into Apartment C7 on July 10. Instead, she left
a voicemail for plaintiff stating she could not afford the higher rent for that unit
and, therefore, would be staying in Apartment A4. Defendant paid plaintiff the
$1025 rent for Apartment A4, but plaintiff returned it to her. Plaintiff alleged
that it was holding Apartment C7 for defendant, and was therefore precluded
from renting it even though it had received multiple inquiries from prospective
tenants concerning the unit.
Rather than instituting a new action for breach of contract in the Special
Civil Part or the Law Division, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement in the underlying summary dispossess action. Plaintiff sought an
order requiring specific enforcement of the agreement, and money damages if
defendant continued to refuse to vacate Apartment A4. Defendant opposed the
motion, and argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to evict her from her
apartment for violating the settlement agreement.
A-0102-19T1
3
After conducting oral argument, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
specific performance. The court found that defendant had voluntarily agreed to
move to the new apartment, and her "buyer's remorse" did not excuse her from
complying with the agreement. The court ordered defendant to move to
Apartment C7 within two weeks and, if she failed to do so, she would be required
to pay the rent on both units retroactive to July 1, 2019. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant argues that the Special Civil Part lacked jurisdiction
to compel her to vacate her apartment as a sanction for violating the settlement
agreement. We agree.
A summary dispossess proceeding is a creature of statute, designed as an
expeditious alternative to an ejectment action under the common law. Hous.
Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 280 (1994). "Possession of the
premises is the only available remedy for nonpayment of rent, because money
damages may not be awarded in a summary dispossess action." Hodges v. Sasil
Corp., 189 N.J. 210, 221 (2007). Possession can only be granted if the landlord
is entitled to possession based on one of the enumerated statutory grounds.
Little, 135 N.J. at 281 (citing Levine v. Seidel, 128 N.J. Super. 225, 229 (App.
Div. 1974)).
A-0102-19T1
4
A trial court reviewing a summary dispossess action lacks general
equitable jurisdiction. Benjoray, Inc. v. Acad. House Child Dev. Ctr., 437 N.J.
Super. 481, 488 (App. Div. 2014) (citing WG Assocs. v. Estate of Roman, 332
N.J. Super. 555, 563 (App. Div. 2000)). "[W]hile such a court 'may hear
equitable defenses and entertain equitable concepts, it is beyond the power of
that court to grant . . . equitable relief . . . as may appear just and appropriate
under the circumstances presented.'" Carr v. Johnson, 211 N.J. Super. 341, 347
(App. Div. 1986) (quoting Morrocco v. Felton, 112 N.J. Super. 226, 230-31
(Law Div. 1970)). "The equitable jurisdiction of the Special Civil Part in a
summary dispossess action is limited to matters of defense or avoidance asserted
by the tenant." Chau v. Cardillo, 250 N.J. Super. 378, 385 (App. Div. 1990).
Applying these principles here, the trial court could only require defendant
to leave Apartment A4 if plaintiff was able to establish "one of the enumerated
statutory 'good causes' in the Anti-Eviction Act." Cmty. Realty Mgmt. v. Harris,
Inc., 155 N.J. 212, 239 (1998). Plaintiff failed to do so. Defendant offered to
pay the rent on Apartment A4, and was not in default on any of the other terms
of her lease. Her failure to abide by the terms of a separate settlement agreement
is simply not one of the "good causes" listed in the Act that permit removing a
tenant.
A-0102-19T1
5
Thus, the court did not have the authority to order defendant to move from
her apartment for violating the settlement agreement, or the power to direct her
to pay monetary damages to plaintiff if she did not. 2 Because the court lacked
jurisdiction to order the equitable relief it granted plaintiff in this summary
dispossess proceeding, we are constrained to reverse the September 4, 2019
order.
Reversed.
2
If plaintiff wished to pursue these remedies, it should have instituted a breach
of contract action in a new proceeding in the Special Civil Part or the Law
Division.
A-0102-19T1
6