806 6th St HCPVI LLC v. Reyes
| Decision Date | 10 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-1383-21 |
| Parties | 806 6TH ST HCPVI LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANA TINEO REYES, JOSE REYES, ANDRES RAMIREZ, JAYLINE RAMIREZ, JOSELIL RAMIREZ, and JEFFREY RAMIREZ, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — 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.
Argued March 8, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Hudson County, Docket No. LT-003235-19.
Cindy Nan Vogelman argued the cause for appellants (Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys; Cody W Pansing, of counsel and on the briefs; Cindy Nan Vogelman and Priscilla E. Savage, on the briefs).
Adrienne LePore argued the cause for respondent (Feinstein Raiss Kelin Booker & Goldstein, LLC, attorneys; Adrienne LePore, on the brief).
Before Judges Vernoia, Firko and Natali.
In this summary dispossess action, defendants Ana Tineo Reyes, Jose Reyes, Andres Ramirez, Jayline Ramirez, Joselil[1] Ramirez, and Jeffrey Ramirez appeal from the December 13, 2021 order denying their Rule 4:50-1(e) and (f) motion to vacate a January 10, 2020 amended consent judgment of possession (amended consent judgment) entered in favor of their landlord, plaintiff 806 6th Street HCPVI, LLC. Defendants argue the court erred by denying the motion because Ana[2] is elderly, cannot read English, only speaks Spanish, and was self-represented when she entered the amended consent judgment under review.
Ana also claims she has paid all rent due and owing following entry of the amended consent judgment; the court did not decide whether her continuing tender of rent constituted a waiver of the terms of the amended consent judgment and its right to remove her from the tenancy; and the court erred in not vacating the judgment of possession consistent with the Stack legislation, N.J.S.A 2A:42-10.16a, which became effective on March 1, 2020, as part of the Fair Eviction Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.15 to -10.17. The Stack legislation provides a tenant with the right to possession if all rent is paid within three days after a lockout. The court entered an order for orderly removal on December 13, 2021, which was stayed pending this appeal.
Because the court did not address Ana's claim that the amended consent judgment should be vacated or make sufficient factual findings as to whether she comprehended the terms of the amended consent judgment, we vacate the December 13, 2021 order and remand for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on defendants' claimed entitlement to vacatur of the amended consent judgment under Rule 4:50-1(e) and (f). We also remand for the court to determine if Ana or the other defendants have paid the outstanding rent due, and if so, whether the Stack legislation applies.
In March 2002, Ana leased a two-bedroom apartment from plaintiff in Union City. Ana signed a lease agreeing to pay $700 per month in rent. The lease states Ana, Jose (Ana's husband), Joselil (Ana's daughter), and Andres (Ana's son-in-law) would occupy the premises. Jayline (Ana's granddaughter) and Jeffrey (Ana's grandson) are also occupants but are not named in the lease.
The rent is currently $571.63 a month, and the apartment is rent controlled. Ana pays the rent and claims defendants contribute toward the rental payments.
On March 14, 2019, plaintiff filed a verified complaint for nonpayment of rent against Ana alleging $1,995.50 was due for unpaid base rent dating back to July 2018 and other unpaid base rent and late charges. At a court proceeding on April 4, 2019, Ana appeared as a self-represented litigant. Ana is not proficient in the English language and requires the assistance of a Spanish interpreter. Ana did not have a court designated Spanish interpreter at the April 4, 2019 proceeding. Nonetheless, that day, plaintiff's counsel and Ana entered into a consent judgment, which was handwritten on a template prepared by plaintiff's law firm, which contained the same language as the court prepared form and included the firm's letterhead. The consent judgment for "tenant to stay in premises," written in English, provides in pertinent part:
The terms of the consent judgment were not placed on the record.
In addition, the consent judgment confirmed the rent was $571.63 per month and that failure to make payment or the breach of any term of the agreement may result in the tenants being evicted "as permitted by law after the service of the warrant of removal." According to Ana, she mistakenly thought the April 4, 2019 consent judgment confirmed she had paid May's rent and that she was required to pay her ongoing monthly rent. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a certification seeking a warrant of removal because Ana failed to trace and replace the money order by the May 5, 2019 deadline.
On June 3, 2019, the court issued a warrant of removal. A hearing was held on June 10, 2019. Plaintiff was represented by counsel, and Ana was represented by an attorney serving as a tenant advocate for Union City. A Spanish interpreter was also present for the hearing. Ana's counsel conceded Ana's outstanding payments included the money order and June's rent. Ana filed a certification stating she "always pa[id] rent on time." No testimony was elicited on this issue, and the court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. The court simply stayed the warrant of removal until June 18, 2019.
Another hearing was held on June 18, 2019. Ana's counsel argued she was "not represented when she entered into the consent judgment," and this is a "lost payment case." Ana's counsel represented that Ana "traced and replaced" the money order, which stems from July 2018's rent. Ana also "traced and replaced" the May 2019 rent and had the June 2019 rent money in hand. According to Ana's counsel, Ana did not comprehend the terms of the settlement as evidenced by the fact Ana thought her June 3, 2019 payment was for June's rent.
Ana filed another certification, which was written in Spanish and translated into English, explaining she is "paying all rent" and it was "just a mistake." With the aid of a Spanish interpreter, the court instructed Ana to make timely rental payments and stayed the warrant of removal for six months until December 2, 2019. The court did not elicit any testimony from Ana as to her understanding of the April 4, 2019 consent judgment.
On November 12, 2019, Ana filed a certification in support of a further stay of eviction, stating she has "not found a new apartment." On November 25, 2019, plaintiff filed a certification asserting Ana failed to pay rent due and owing. On December 9, 2019, the court issued a warrant of removal. Eight days later, Ana filed a certification in Spanish that was translated, stating, "I have paid my rent on time." That day, the court stayed the warrant of removal until January 2, 2020.
On January 2, 2020, an order to show cause (OTSC) was filed on behalf of intervenors Jose, Joselil, Andres, Jayline, and Jeffrey by their attorney seeking to vacate the judgment of possession on the basis their rights were prejudiced because they were not named as defendants in the tenancy complaint. In support of the OTSC, Jayline submitted a certification stating that Ana does not speak English and "had no understanding of the ramifications of what she signed," referring to the April 4, 2019 consent judgment.
Jayline added that Ana "felt pressured," "went to court alone," and thought "she was required to sign it in order to stay in the apartment." Jayline also certified that defendants-including Ana-had never missed or been late with a rental payment, and Ana has "receipts for every rental payment." According to Jayline, neither Ana nor co-defendants knew that they were required to move out and they "learned of this only in December 2019, when [they] received the warrant of removal from the court."
On the January 10, 2020 OTSC return date, plaintiff's counsel appeared for the hearing. Ana appeared for the hearing, but her tenant advocate counsel did not.[3] Ana thus proceeded as a self-represented litigant. Counsel for Jayline and the other defendants as "intervenors" appeared, but the record shows he did not represent Ana. At the OTSC hearing, Ana and the attorney for defendants/intervenors signed an amended consent judgment for possession, which included all defendants. Defendants-including Ana-agreed to vacate the apartment by May 10, 2020, as per the terms of the amended consent judgment. The amended consent judgment also stated that if they moved out by May 10, plaintiff would refund them any rental payments made for the months of January, February, March, and April. If defendants requested an extension of the May 10 move-out date, plaintiff agreed to extend them an additional two months, but the previous rental payments would not be refunded.
Defendants/intervenors' counsel stated on the record, "the agreement is exactly what [c]ounsel [for plaintiff] and I negotiated," and that he had the "opportunity to speak to [his] clients about post[-]judgment issues." Ana and Jayline testified they understood the agreement. Ana then asked, "[w]hat else ...
To continue reading
Request your trial