THE OCEAN AT 101 BOARDWALK VS. WANDA PITTMAN (LT-4198-14, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2960-14T2

Background

Plaintiff (The Ocean at 101 Boardwalk) and defendant (Wanda Pittman) entered a court-approved Consent to Enter Judgment (Stipulation) in an eviction action requiring defendant to pay $1,506 (split as $1,436 by Oct. 3 and $70.64 by Oct. 15) and remain current on rent; judgment of possession would be vacated upon full payment.
Stipulation allowed defendant to temporarily move from apartment 717 to 718 (move scheduled Oct. 20) due to habitability work and provided monthly rent of $718; it also stated a warrant of removal could issue if defendant failed to make required payments.
Defendant missed the Oct. 3 deadline, paid $1,506.64 into court on Oct. 8 when seeking a stay, but continued to be late on subsequent monthly rent (November, December, January payments were untimely or partial).
Defendant signed a new lease for apartment 718; plaintiff did not accept a December 2 money order and obtained a warrant procedure after continued nonpayment; court ordered payment of outstanding rent and $500 counsel fees by Jan. 9/12 to stay removal.
The trial court denied defendant’s Jan. 12, 2015 order to vacate the warrant of removal when she failed to pay the amounts ordered; defendant was evicted Jan. 30, 2015 and her later Feb. 3 application was also denied (not appealed).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s payments and deposit into court required vacatur of judgment/warrant	Stipulation required timely payments; because defendant remained delinquent, vacatur was not required	Payment of $1,506.64 into court and partial payments meant judgment should have been vacated and eviction prevented	Court held vacatur not required; defendant repeatedly failed to make timely rent payments under the Stipulation
Whether execution of a new lease (apt. 718) waived enforcement of the Stipulation (preventing eviction)	Stipulation contemplated the temporary move; new lease did not nullify eviction rights for nonpayment	Signing a new lease and paying rent for 718 negated the Stipulation and waived eviction	Court held new lease did not constitute waiver; move was contemplated and rent default still authorized warrant issuance
Whether plaintiff breached Stipulation by not moving defendant by Oct. 20, barring a warrant	Plaintiff argued scheduling/move issues did not excuse timely rent payments or invalidate warrant rights	Defendant argued plaintiff’s failure to move her by Oct. 20 breached the Stipulation, so warrant should never issue	Court held failure to meet the move deadline was not shown to excuse or abrogate the obligation of timely payment; no proof it affected rent requirement
Whether trial court erred in denying the order to show cause to vacate warrant	Plaintiff argued trial court properly applied Stipulation terms and found ongoing nonpayment	Defendant argued denial was erroneous because she had made payments into court and the Stipulation should have been enforced in her favor	Court affirmed denial: factual findings of continued nonpayment supported refusal to vacate warrant

Key Cases Cited

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474 (deferential standard for appellate review of trial court factfinding)
D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (plenary review of legal determinations)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Township Committee of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (principles on appellate review of legal issues)
W.H. Industries, Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda., 397 N.J. Super. 455 (appeal limited to orders designated in notice of appeal)
Sikes v. Township of Rockaway, 269 N.J. Super. 463 (same; procedural limits on appeals)
Montgomery Gateway v. Herrera, 261 N.J. Super. 235 (waiver by acceptance of new lease and rent under specific facts)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hansen-Jensen, 15 N.J. Super. 20 (contract interpretation: give reasonable meaning to all provisions)