Unreasonable rent increase

[John111]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

Hello,

My apartment community offers a choice of month-to-month lease for extra 10% fee. After my first year lease expired, I opted for the month-to-month option and agreed to pay regular annual increase plus 10% which resulted in about 13%. During the second year management has upgraded their computer system and lost all info who was on year-to-year and who was on month-to-month terms. Once my second year lease expired, they offered to renew on year-to-year basis with 3% increase or on month-to-month basis with 13% increase ignoring the fact that I was already paying extra for month-to-month option. So if accepted month-to-month, I would be paying 20% fee for month-to-month option instead of 10%; if accepted year-to-year, I would be still paying 10% fee but not getting month-to-month terms for it.

Today identical just newly renovated apartment next door is offered for $1,150 with year-to-year lease. My current month-to-month rent is $1,254. I was offered to renew as year-to-year for $1,292 or as month-to-month for $1,420.

I tried to resolve the issue both by phone an mail. Mail is simply ignored and on the phone staff refuses to listen, they just endlessly repeat “yes, there is extra fee for month-to-month”. They do not comprehend the fact that my current rent already includes 10% extra and they are trying to double it.

I tried to file a claim in NJ Landlord-Tenant court but a clerk told that only Landlords can submit claims. He provided me a phone number which he said was “NJ Tenant Organization”.

A very nice lady in the “NJ Tenant Organization” ensured me that 12% increase is far beyond reasonable (she appeared to have rent increase stats for my county). She told that I have to sign a month-to-month lease but pay only what I consider reasonable. Then landlord would take me to Landlord-Tenant court and it would be his burden to prove that 12% was indeed reasonable.

Here are my questions:

1. Does the approach suggested by “NJ Tenant Organization” seem reasonable? Shall I instead refuse to sign the lease and explain my case to judge once landlord tries to evict me?
2. If judge decides that 12% was indeed reasonable increase, am I at risk of paying many thousands to cover landlords legal expenses (my lease states that legal expenses become part of rent)?
3. I am willing to pay couple hundred dollars to get a quality legal advice, but 10 lawyers listed as specializing in “landlord/tenant cases” I called said they only work with landlords. How do I find one who could advice in my situation?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

JohnWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

why are you so attached to this apartment complex? have you considered moving?

 

[Who's Liable?]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
1. Does the approach suggested by “NJ Tenant Organization” seem reasonable? Shall I instead refuse to sign the lease and explain my case to judge once landlord tries to evict me?

Sure... Up to you, the NJ Tenant Org. was created to help tenants resolve problems with LLs;... BUT if you lose, you will be expected to immediately move PLUS pay any monetary fines associated with the eviction.

2. If judge decides that 12% was indeed reasonable increase, am I at risk of paying many thousands to cover landlords legal expenses (my lease states that legal expenses become part of rent)?

I wouldn't say "thousands" but probably more than you would feel comfortable...

3. I am willing to pay couple hundred dollars to get a quality legal advice, but 10 lawyers listed as specializing in “landlord/tenant cases” I called said they only work with landlords. How do I find one who could advice in my situation?

Keep calling... You're bound to find one. Look in the yellow pages, or call back the NJ Tenant group and ask for a referral.

 

[John111]

WhosLiable,

Thanks a lot for your response.

NJ Tenant Org said I would not get evicted in either case, I only would have to pay these 12%. Are you sure I would still get evicted even if I instantly pay whatever judge determines I have to? I am not planning not to pay the rent; I would only withhold part of increase.

John

 

[Who's Liable?]

WhosLiable,

Thanks a lot for your response.

NJ Tenant Org said I would not get evicted in either case, I only would have to pay these 12%. Are you sure I would still get evicted even if I instantly pay whatever judge determines I have to?

That's assuming the LL will accept your payment after a judgement hsa been granted...

I am not planning not to pay the rent; I would only withhold part of increase.

By not paying ALL the funds, rent + rent increase(regardless of if you agree with them or not) you technically are NOT paying the rent. Therefore you would be in violation of your lease for non-payment of rent.

 

[John111]

That's assuming the LL will accept your payment after a judgement hsa been granted...

WhosLiable,

After more research I found the information you provided to be false.

See "N.J.S.A. 2A:18-55. Discontinuance upon payment into court of rent in arrears; receipt". If, in actions instituted under paragraph "b" of section 2A:18-53 of this title, the tenant or person in possession of the demised premises shall at any time on or before entry of final judgment, pay to the clerk of the court the rent claimed to be in default, together with the accrued costs of the proceedings, all proceedings shall be stopped. The receipt of the clerk shall be evidence of such payment. The clerk shall forthwith pay all moneys so received to the landlord, his agent or assigns. (source: Grounds for Eviction ~ NJ Law in Review, http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={671}&softpage=Document42).

No matter what the judge decides, I cannot get evicted if I pay due amount in the court. It's not up to landlord to decide if he wants to accept my payment; he is bound to accept it by law.

Anyway, thanks for trying to help.

John

 

[Alaska landlord]

NJ is a very tenant friendly state. That's why landlords rely on court records in their decision to rent to tenants. Your case will be of value to the next LL that is considering your application. I wouldn't count on any landlord considering your application to care whether or not you were in the right.

 

[John111]

AlaskaLandlord,

Thanks for the warning.

Could anybody else comment on this please? Could it be true that my attempt to dispute landlords actions in court would effectively prevent me from leasing any apartment in United States in future? Then, what is the point of having all these laws to protect tenants, like N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f). (rent increase cannot be unconscionable)? If it is legal for landlord to ignore tenant's application just because tenant once exercised his rights (although never got evicted), that essentially would render all these laws unenforceable.

Thanks,

John

 

[Who's Liable?]

WhosLiable,

After more research I found the information you provided to be false.

See "N.J.S.A. 2A:18-55. Discontinuance upon payment into court of rent in arrears; receipt". If, in actions instituted under paragraph "b" of section 2A:18-53 of this title, the tenant or person in possession of the demised premises shall at any time on or before entry of final judgment, pay to the clerk of the court the rent claimed to be in default, together with the accrued costs of the proceedings, all proceedings shall be stopped. The receipt of the clerk shall be evidence of such payment. The clerk shall forthwith pay all moneys so received to the landlord, his agent or assigns. (source: Grounds for Eviction ~ NJ Law in Review, http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={671}&softpage=Document42).

No matter what the judge decides, I cannot get evicted if I pay due amount in the court. It's not up to landlord to decide if he wants to accept my payment; he is bound to accept it by law.

Anyway, thanks for trying to help.

John

Maybe I should clarify a little more...

What the judge orders and what the LL does are two COMPLETELY different things. You are also under the assumption the judge will side with you citing N.J.S.A. 2A:18-5, BUT the real truth is you DONT know if the judge will agree with your point.
No one on this board can tell you with %100 accuracy the judge WILL agree with you or the clause.

AlaskaLandlord,

Thanks for the warning.

Could anybody else comment on this please? Could it be true that my attempt to dispute landlords actions in court would effectively prevent me from leasing any apartment in United States in future?

It's not the black smear that some people on here portray it to be. You CAN rent at other places. In my experience large management companies are more concerned with your ability to pay rather than what type of person you are. Smaller managment(individuals) are more concerned with what type of person you are rather than if you can pay...

Then, what is the point of having all these laws to protect tenants, like N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(f). (rent increase cannot be unconscionable)? If it is legal for landlord to ignore tenant's application just because tenant once exercised his rights (although never got evicted), that essentially would render all these laws unenforceable.

Welcome to America! You can be denied on a NUMBER of things... As Alaska stated, you could be rejected for being a nuisance tenant, not worth the trouble to have. If a LL sees you have had past issues with LLs that involved a court order, you're less likely to be approved...

Good luck!

 

[Cvillecpm]

The answer is YES * after 9/11 landlords were put on notice by the FBI and local law enforcement to KNOW WHO WE ARE RENTING TO * many landlords now have to subscribe to services to run credit, criminal, etc background checks. Many landlords even run Facebook/Myspace checks and including court records is common...your next landlord will find you have been to court with a landlord and may well pass on your application....another applicant with NO such notation will get the rental property.

 

[John111]

AlaskaLandlord, Cvillecpm,

You both seem to be right. Unfortunately, there is a widespread consensus on the practical unenforceability of tenant-landlord law in United States. After rather quick research I was able to find numerous articles discussing the issue (including New York Times). Here is a nice summary by University of Chicago Law School (2008):

“…This screening presents a social problem, because society has an interest in ensuring that the landlord-tenant laws are enforced, and the common law system requires the help of plaintiffs who generate appellate cases, the resolution of which will clarify the law. Landlord-tenant law, as it exists in ordinances and case law, bears little resemblance to the set of rules that govern every day relations between landlords and tenants. The reputational consequences of involvement in litigation are so severe that a rational tenant should often elect not to seek enforcement of the substantive entitlements provided by formal law. In this environment, it is safe to wonder whether landlord-tenant clinics should even exist in their current form. “ - http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2302&context=alea, page 11

Landlord-Tenant law is pretty much worthless text, which explains why my landlord does not care when I 20th time complain that temperature in apartment is 55F (NJ law requires 65F at night), never gave anyone “Truth in Renting” publication (NJ law says its $100 fine for each time landlord fails to give it with a lease), raises rent 12% when average rent is falling in the area (NJ law does not permit unconscionable increases)… And still it is by far the best landlord I had (4 total). Compared to what I’ve been through and with others and the horror stories in this forum, this is nothing…

WhosLiable,

For factual accuracy, in New Jersey it is not possible to get evicted no matter what judge decides, as long as tenant pays to the court clerk all the due money immediately after judgment. This is not my opinion – it’s written in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-55. Would you mind providing citation if disagree.

All,

I really appreciate your advice. Thank you!

John

 

[Alaska landlord]

“…This screening presents a social problem, because society has an interest in ensuring that the landlord-tenant laws are enforced, and the common law system requires the help of plaintiffs who generate appellate cases, the resolution of which will clarify the law. Landlord-tenant law, as it exists in ordinances and case law, bears little resemblance to the set of rules that govern every day relations between landlords and tenants. The reputational consequences of involvement in litigation are so severe that a rational tenant should often elect not to seek enforcement of the substantive entitlements provided by formal law. In this environment, it is safe to wonder whether landlord-tenant clinics should even exist in their current form. “ - http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2302&context=alea, page 11

I don't find fault with a system that allows for consequences for your actions. You would jump at the chance to litigate your case if you knew that there was no chance of your actions affecting your rental history. Landlords as property owners should be able to decide who will occupy their property and should also be able to determine what their criteria for renting should be. The government has no stake in the landlord's property and should therefore keep their regulations out of the equation. You as the tenant can decide not to rent from a particular LL and a bad landlord's reputation will usually make itself known in the community. States like NJ through their draconian landlord tenant laws only serve to depress the rental market and drive up rates. The more landlords that take their business to other states, the more your rental fees climb.

 

[John111]

AlaskaLandlord,

How much government should be involved in regulatory activities is endless debate lasting for centuries, we are not likely to come up with conclusion here.

If it is normal when law is routinely violated without any consequences is another and much simpler question. Only most radical groups in society would regard it as acceptable.

I could not agree with you more that landlord indeed should be aware of problematic tenants in order to avoid them. But the issue is that there is no distinction who was problematic: if landlord refuses to return security deposit without any valid reason, and tenant takes him to court and gets the deposit back, he still is seen as problematic and will have close to zero chances of renting apartment in NY, according to study I referred above.

Under current system, tenant who was taken to court because he violated the law is considered equally problematic as a tenant who got into litigation in order to fight law violation by landlord.

Getting back to my case, I agree it would be fair if other landlords refuse my applications as problematic once court decides that 12% increase was reasonable. But I find it absurd that I would be refused application even if court decides that landlord violated NJ law by asking unconscionable increase. Would you agree?

Regards,

John

 

[ecmst12]

Don't bother arguing with Alaska. He thinks tenants who insist that landlords follow the law are just PITAs that aren't worth renting to.

 

[Alaska landlord]

Getting back to my case, I agree it would be fair if other landlords refuse my applications as problematic once court decides that 12% increase was reasonable. But I find it absurd that I would be refused application even if court decides that landlord violated NJ law by asking unconscionable increase. Would you agree?

Sure, it is unfair that a landlord can decline your application on the basis that you are litigious.
But life is not meant to be fair. I realize that there has to be a final authority in landlord tenant disputes. But, it is not always possible for a landlord to receive fair treatment under the law. Many landlords lose their case on technicalities. For example; I once read somewhere that a landlord lost his case because he posted a pay or quit on the front door and the tenant claimed that he never got it because he only uses the back door. Now, with the exception of ecmst12, very few people would believe he wasn’t served.

Your state is known for being anti-landlord and is evidenced by laws that do not allow a landlord to evict a tenant even when the tenant is a month to month tenant and has been totally uncooperative with the landlord throughout the term. Just a few posts ago someone claimed that his girlfriend was given 3 weeks to vacate by the Judge. Now what is fair about that ruling? For a tenant that is not paying rent to be allowed to stay on the property for 3 weeks is criminal. My contention is that a landlord should be able to utilize any and all avenues allowed to him by the law. What it comes down to is that the landlord is risking his property while the tenant may be risking a few thousand dollars at most.

BTW, the State should not be the one to decide how much a landlord can charge for rent.