NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-5647-18
A-0148-19
A-0167-19
HADDON POINT MANAGER,
LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL O. LIVINGSTONE,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted November 18, 2021 – Decided December 3, 2021
Before Judges Alvarez and Haas.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Docket Nos. LT-002379-19,
LT-003820-19, and LT-005828-19.
Michael O. Livingstone, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In these three back-to-back landlord-tenant appeals, which we now
consolidate for purposes of this opinion, defendant Michael O. Livingstone
challenges: (1) the Special Civil Part's June 6, 2019 order requiring defendant
to pay $406 to plaintiff Haddon Point Manager, LLC to avoid eviction; (2) the
court's July 18, 2019 order denying defendant's motion to hold plaintiff and its
attorney in contempt; and (3) the court's August 15, 2019 order granting a
judgment of possession to plaintiff after defendant failed to pay $405 in unpaid
late fees and attorney's fees. We affirm.
The material facts are not in dispute. On December 24, 2018, defendant
signed a one-year residential lease with plaintiff for a one-bedroom apartment.
Defendant agreed to pay $1,520 per month in rent. The lease stated that if
defendant did not pay the rent by the fifth day of the month, he would be required
to pay plaintiff a ten percent late charge along with the monthly rent. The lease
also provided that if plaintiff
institutes legal proceedings to remove [defendant] from
the [a]partment for good cause, including but not
limited to, [defendant's] failure to pay . . . [r]ent or
[o]ther [c]harges due under the [l]ease, [defendant]
agrees to pay [plaintiff] court costs, costs of the
preparation and filing of legal documents, and/or
attendance at court, reasonable attorney's fees and all
other costs of legal proceedings.
A-5647-18
2
The lease further stated that the late fees and attorney's fees were "[p]ayable as
additional rent."
Defendant did not pay his February or March 2019 rent on time and
plaintiff assessed him late fees. On March 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an eviction
complaint against defendant in the Special Civil Part. However, plaintiff's
witness did not appear at the April 25, 2019 trial and the court dismissed its
complaint.
Shortly thereafter, defendant filed a motion seeking to bar plaintiff from
continuing to claim the late fees. However, defendant failed to appear at the
May 16, 2019 hearing on his motion and, therefore, the court dismissed his
motion. On May 30, 2019, the court denied defendant's motion to vacate this
dismissal.
Defendant did not pay his May 2019 rent on time and plaintiff assessed
him $152 late fees for February, March, and May, totaling $456, together with
additional attorney's fees and court costs. Plaintiff then filed a judgment for
possession complaint against defendant. On the June 6, 2019 return date, the
court enforced the lease and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff $406,
representing the $152 late fee for May 2019 and $254 in attorney's fees by the
end of the day. Otherwise, the court stated it would issue plaintiff a judgment
A-5647-18
3
of possession. Defendant made the required payment and continued to reside in
the apartment.
On July 2, 2019, defendant filed a motion seeking an order holding
plaintiff and its attorney in contempt. Defendant alleged that plaintiff continued
to list an unpaid balance of $1,000 on his "ledger" for the attorney's fees plaintiff
had assessed against him for its defense of the motions defendant filed in May
2019. Defendant asked the court to direct plaintiff to remove these charges from
the ledger and to "order the [p]olice to supervise [p]laintiff" when it did so.
Following oral argument on July 18, 2019, the court noted that it had not
previously ruled on the propriety of these charges and stated that if plaintiff
sought to recover them in a future collection action, it would consider
defendant's arguments at that time.
Defendant did not pay his July 2019 rent on time. Plaintiff assessed him
a $152 late fee for that month, together with $253 in legal fees and court costs.
Plaintiff also sought a judgment of possession. On the August 15, 2019 return
date, the court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff the $405 due by the end of the
day in order to avoid eviction. When defendant failed to do so, the court entered
a judgment of possession in plaintiff's favor.
A-5647-18
4
On September 12, 2019, the court denied defendant's application to vacate
the judgment of possession. On September 25, 2019, we stayed defendant's
eviction until October 7, 2019 "[t]o allow for an orderly removal." Plaintiff
thereafter assumed possession of the apartment.
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments concerning the
Special Civil Part's June 6, 2019 order:
[POINT I]
The Trial Court abused its discretion on June 6, 2019
Trial [sic] when the Court failed to detect and dismiss
the eviction complaint as a defective complaint that
does not plead the full $1,000 Attorney Fees –
additional rent Haddon Point demanded at trial;
permitted on-the-spot oral amendment of the complaint
without leave of Court; Haddon Point committed a
Fraud Upon The Court; all in violation of Appellant's
due process and FDCPA rights.
[POINT II]
The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion During [the]
June 6, 2019 Trial When The Court Did Not Waive May
2019 Late Rent Fees Despite Haddon Point Violating
Its Own Rules In The Lease Contract By Accepting
Late Rent Payment Money Orders Without Late Fees
Together.
[POINT III]
The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When The Court
Awarded Unconscionable And Unreasonable 10% Late
Rent Payment Fees To Haddon Point.
A-5647-18
5
Defendant presents the following arguments concerning the court's July
18, 2019 order:
[POINT IV]
The Trial Court abused its discretion during [the] July
18, 2019 post-trial motion hearing . . . when the Trial
Court said the $1,000 May 2019 attorney fees-
additional rent was not before the Court and so the
Court did not rule upon it during the June 6, 2019 Trial
. . . despite what the adjudicative record says.
[POINT V]
The Trial Court abused its discretion during July 18,
2019 post-trial motion hearing . . . when the Court
stated with vagueness that the $1,000 attorney fees-
additional rent Haddon Point demanded during the June
6, 2019 trial . . . was reserved for "another time" despite
the fact that no part of the adjudicative transcript . . .
shows any reservation, adjournment, without any
specific date.
[POINT VI]
The Trial Court abused its discretion during [the] July
18, 2019 post-trial motion hearing . . . when the Court
reasoned with ambiguity and logical flaws that Haddon
Point can later pursue the denied $1,000 May 2019
attorney fees-additional rent notwithstanding the same
Court previously denied it as "additional rent" during
the June 6, 2019 trial . . . on grounds of doctrine of
laches.
[POINT VII]
A-5647-18
6
The Trial Court abused its discretion when it reasoned
during [the] July 18, 2019 post-trial motion hearing that
Haddon Point can pursue the June 2019 already-denied
$1,000 May 2019 attorney fees-additional rent as
monetary damages later on.
[POINT VIII]
The Trial Court abused its discretion during the July 18,
2019 post-trial motion hearing when the Court said
Haddon Point can pursue the $1,000 May 2019 attorney
fees whereas Haddon Point acknowledged on June 6,
2019 trial that they are not the "prevailing party"
entitled to collecting [sic] those Attorney fees.
[POINT IX]
The Trial Court abused its discretion when the Trial
Judge failed to recognize that Haddon Point Attorneys
were taking advantage of his faded memory to prolong
the case and/or bully pro se Livingstone for $1,000
Attorney Fees the Court had already previously denied.
[POINT X]
The Trial Court abused its discretion during the July 18,
20[19] hearing when the Court failed to impose
sanctions against Haddon Point.
Finally, defendant raises the following arguments concerning the court's
August 15, 2019 order:
[POINT XI]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN THE COURT DECLINED TO TRANSFER
THIS THIRD EVICTION CASE TO THE LAW
A-5647-18
7
DIVISION DESPITE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
PARALLEL FEDERAL LITIGATION AND TWO
PREVIOUS DISMISSED EVICTION COMPLAINTS
BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES.
[POINT XII]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
DURING [THE] AUGUST 15, 2019 TRIAL WHEN
THE COURT PROVIDED UNFAIR AND HIGHLY
PREJUDICIAL TRIAL [SIC] AGAINST
APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
FAIR TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.
[POINT XIII]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION ON
AUGUST 15, 2019 TRIAL [SIC] WHEN THE COURT
DECLINED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS A
DEFECTIVE COMPLAINT CONTAINING
INACCURATE WATER BILL IN VIOLATION OF
DUE PROCESS AND FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS
PRACTICES ACT.
[POINT XIV]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
DURING [THE] AUGUST 15, 2019 TRIAL WHEN
THE COURT FAILED TO APPLY BREACH OF
CONTRACT LAW AGAINST HADDON POINT FOR
VIOLATING ITS OWN RULES IN THE LEASE
INSTEAD OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AGAINST
APPELLANT.
[POINT XV]
A-5647-18
8
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN THE COURT TREATED THIS CASE AS
"HABITUAL LATE PAYMENT OF RENT"
INSTEAD OF "NON-PAYMENT OF RENT"
DURING BOTH AUGUST 15, 2019 TRIAL AND
SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
POST-TRIAL MOTION HEARING.
[POINT XVI]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE MOTION HEARING WHEN THE
COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO BE
HEARD, PREJUDICED AND DISCRIMINATED
APPELLANT, [SIC] AND DECLINED TO VACATE
THE JUDG[]MENT OF POSSESSION.
[POINT XVII]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
DURING [THE] SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 POST-TRIAL
HEARING WHEN THE COURT PREJUDICED
APPELLANT FOR ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
AND GAMESMANSHIP AS A RESULT OF
CUMMULATIVE [SIC] EFFECT OF THE TWO
PREVIOUS EVICTION CASES.
[POINT XVIII]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN THE COURT PREJUDICED APPELLANT
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 POST-TRIAL
MOTION HEARING CLAIMING THAT
APPELLANT HAS "INTENTIONALLY" CHOSEN
NOT TO PAY RENT ON TIME.
[POINT XIX]
A-5647-18
9
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE MOTION HEARING WHEN THE
COURT CONSPIRED WITH HADDON POINT TO
EVICT APPELLANT IN RETALIATION FOR
FILING THIS INSTANT NOTICE OF APPEAL TO
THIS COURT; FEDERAL LAWSUIT; AND
MOTIONS.
[POINT XX]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
DURING [THE] SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE HEARING WHEN THE COURT
EVICTED APPELLANT FOR $12,000 ATTORNEY
FEES-ADDITIONAL RENT THAT DOES NOT
APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE FACE OF THE
EVICTION COMPLAINT IN VIOLATION OF
FDCPA AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
[POINT XXI]
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
WHEN THE COURT AWARDED
UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNREASONABLE 10%
LATE RENT PAYMENT FEES TO HADDON POINT.
[POINT XXII]
THIS APPELLATE COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION WHEN HADDON POINT
COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY
OBTAINING EX-PARTE AMENDMENT OF THIS
COURT'S SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 EMERGENT STAY
ORDER.
A-5647-18
10
We have considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and the
applicable legal principles, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-5647-18
11