LATOYA THOMPSON VS. BOARD OF REVIEWÂ (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
A-1409-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Tenant Liza Heidt leased a five-bedroom Princeton home from landlord Nancy Castelino starting May 15, 2015; monthly rent $4,000 and $6,000 security deposit required.
- On June 12–13, 2015, during a heat wave the home's air conditioner malfunctioned (interior temps ~88–90°F); Heidt emailed Castelino and, receiving no prompt response, arranged and paid Messick Plumbing & Heating $512.30 to repair the A/C.
- On July 8–10, 2015 a toilet became clogged and inoperable; Heidt's counsel notified Castelino on July 8, and Heidt paid Messick $335.75 to repair the toilet on July 10.
- Heidt claimed Castelino failed to provide statutorily required written notice of the security deposit's bank/address and interest rate under N.J.S.A. 46:8-19; Castelino asserted she had provided notice in the lease and by a June 5, 2015 letter.
- After a bench trial in Special Civil Part, the court found breach of the implied warranty of habitability and breach of the lease, awarded rent abatement and payment for repairs ($512.30 + $335.75) plus one day's rent, ordered credit of $6,117.60 from the security deposit toward future rent, and awarded attorney’s fees to Heidt under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.66; Castelino appealed pro se and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Heidt's Argument | Castelino's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty of habitability / rent abatement for A/C failure | Heidt argued the A/C failure during a heat wave (and her child's asthma) rendered the premises effectively uninhabitable and she reasonably arranged repairs after no prompt response | Castelino argued the condition was not urgent, Heidt should have called/texted, and landlord had time to inspect/repair | Court: A/C failure rendered premises uninhabitable; Heidt acted reasonably; award for repair cost and one day's rent affirmed (bench findings credible) |
| Right-to-repair / lease interpretation (sections 9–11) | Heidt argued lease required landlord to maintain plumbing/heating; repairs were landlord's obligation because breakdowns were not caused by tenant | Castelino argued lease provisions shifted repair duty to tenant, or limited remedies, and that Heidt improperly performed repairs | Court: Lease obligated landlord to maintain systems; Heidt did not cause faults; her repairs were necessary and reasonable — award upheld |
| Security deposit notice (N.J.S.A. 46:8-19) | Heidt argued Castelino failed to give constitutionally/statutorily adequate written notice of bank/address and interest rate within 30 days | Castelino claimed information was on lease front page and she mailed a June 5 notice (or that fiancé issued the check) | Court: Notice in lease was inadequate (no bank address or interest rate shown) and no convincing proof of mailed June 5 notice; statutory remedy ordered (credit of deposit toward rent) |
| Attorney's fees (N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.66) | Heidt sought reasonable fees under the statute and the lease's provision allowing landlord fees, invoking the statute's implied-parallel-covenant to allow tenant fees when tenant prevails | Castelino contested fee award | Court: Statute applies where lease allows landlord to recover fees; because Heidt successfully pursued landlord breach-of-lease/habitability claims, reasonable attorney's fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Berzito v. Gambino, 63 N.J. 460 (1973) (recognizes implied warranty of habitability in residential leases and tenant's right to seek rent abatement)
- Trentacost v. Brussel, 82 N.J. 214 (1980) (identifies minimum necessities for habitability: heat/ventilation, light, plumbing/sanitation, security/maintenance)
- Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150 (2011) (standard of appellate review for non-jury cases)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (factual findings of trial court will not be disturbed unless wholly insupportable)
- Balsamides v. Protameen Chems., Inc., 160 N.J. 352 (1999) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (issues not raised below generally not considered on appeal)
- C.F. Seabrook Co. v. Beck, 174 N.J. Super. 577 (App. Div. 1980) (bench findings on rent abatement reviewed for support by credible evidence)