A-3149-18T1
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.May 21, 2020Background
- Tenants Robert Minster and Mariantonia Costamaral rented a Princeton single‑family home (lease through Jan 31, 2018); monthly rent rose to $3,050 in final year. Tenants paid $3,900 security deposit plus $2,600 labeled "pet security."
- At lease end tenants vacated and asked return of deposit; landlord Michael Volovnik refused, claiming charges for unpaid rent, cleanup and repairs exceeded the deposit. Bench trial followed; only the parties testified.
- Plaintiffs sought return of deposit and reimbursement for work they performed: driveway sealcoating ($400) and gutter repairs ($732.95), plus several maintenance items they do not contest. Defendant counterclaimed for: tree/stump removal (invoice ~ $8,316.75), removal/repair related to an electric dog fence (~ $3,893), and roof/gutter leaf cleanup ($749), and sought last month’s rent ($3,050).
- Trial court found certain items were landlord (vital system) responsibilities, awarded plaintiffs return of deposits plus their improvement costs, offset landlord credits, doubled the net amount under the Security Deposit Act, and entered judgment for $8,206.68.
- On appeal the Appellate Division held parts of the trial court’s findings unsupported by law or evidence (driveway sealcoat and treating the shade tree as a "vital system"), upheld other findings (gutter repair and some credits), corrected the statutory doubling calculation, and remanded with a revised judgment of $6,867.90 plus costs and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Driveway sealcoating ($400) — was this recoverable as a landlord responsibility? | Minster: driveway was a "vital system" and sealcoating was needed; he paid to prevent deterioration. | Volovnik: tenants never notified him; driveway didn’t need immediate work; tenants could not unilaterally improve a vital system. | Reversed: tenants failed to prove immediate need or notice; unauthorized improvement to a vital system is not recoverable. |
| 2) Gutter repairs ($732.95) — landlord or tenant responsibility? | Minster: holes in gutters created a hazardous icy condition; landlord refused to repair; tenants paid for safety. | Volovnik: disputed extent/necessity. | Affirmed for tenant: record supports tenant reimbursement for gutter repairs. |
| 3) Tree removal (≈$8,316.75) — damages to property caused by tenants’ trimming/ removals? | Volovnik: tenants cut trees/left stumps; defendant incurred large removal costs. | Minster: removed only dead/dangerous parts; had permission to remove tree if he paid; defendant produced no expert tying deaths to tenants’ trimming or allocating invoice to one tree. | Reversed for defendant: insufficient competent evidence linking tenant acts to tree deaths and invoice not itemized; landlord failed burden of proof. |
| 4) Electric dog fence removal/related electrical repairs (~$3,893) — recoverable? | Volovnik: fence had to be removed and electrical fixes were required because of fence. | Minster: landlord told tenant fence could remain and add value; invoice unclear and hearsay. | Affirmed for tenant: trial court reasonably rejected hearsay evidence; invoice did not show fence removal was sole cause of work. |
| 5) Security deposit doubling and computation — what amount is doubled under the Security Deposit Act? | Minster: deposit returned and court should double net wrongfully withheld amount. | Volovnik: trial court doubled net difference (court actually doubled $3,942.49). | Modified: appellate court held the $2,600 "pet" deposit exceeded statutory 1.5× rent and must be doubled before credits; recalculated judgment to $6,867.90 and remanded for entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, 205 N.J. 150 (2011) (standard of appellate review for bench trial findings)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (trial‑court factual findings entitled to deference)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (bench‑trial findings binding when supported by credible evidence)
- DeHanes v. Rothman, 158 N.J. 90 (1999) (limits on lay persons’ ability to prove specialized maintenance/repair needs)
- Mercedes‑Benz Credit Corp. v. Lotito, 328 N.J. Super. 491 (App. Div. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to prove damages)
- Penbara v. Straczynski, 347 N.J. Super. 155 (App. Div. 2002) (statutory penalty doubles the net amount wrongfully withheld)
- Kang In Yi v. Re/Max Fortune Props., Inc., 338 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2001) (clarifies what is doubled under Security Deposit Act)
- Reilly v. Weiss, 406 N.J. Super. 71 (App. Div. 2009) (landlord cannot evade statutory deposit cap by labeling parts as pet deposit)
- Jaremback v. Butler Ridge Apartments, 166 N.J. Super. 84 (App. Div. 1979) (doubling applies to net amount due after allowable credits)