Archive for February, 2010

Legis Update: 3 day review for rental properties

Written by Mike Pisauro on February 23rd, 2010 in Contracts, Rental Property | No Comments »

A new bill has been introduced in the Senate that will impact how landlords do business.  S1448 if enacted would require all residential leases to contain a three day attorney review provision similar to the one contained in the realtor real estate contracts for the sale of properties.  The bill would require on the top of the first page of a lease the following:

THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING LEASE THAT WILL BECOME FINAL AFTER THREE BUSINESS DAYS OR ON THE DATE THAT THE TENANT FIRST OCCUPIES THE DWELLING, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. PRIOR TO THAT TIME YOU MAY CHOOSE TO CONSULT AN ATTORNEY WHO CAN REVIEW AND CANCEL THE LEASE. SEE SECTION ON ATTORNEY REVIEW FOR DETAILS.

The attorney review provisions of the law would not apply to units that are already rented but are up for renewal.  It would also not apply to leases drawn up by realtors because they already contained the required language.

The bill would also require a clause that sets forth the three day attorney review provision.  Given all of the protections that NJ’s landlord tenant laws provide to a tenant I am not sure what more can be negotiated for.  From a landlord’s prospective, it can create havoc.  For example, if a landlord as has 10 unit apartment building, the negotiations under the attorney review provisions, could lead to 10 very different leases.  It would be very difficult to maintain track of all of the differences in the leases and to enforce them.  If the landlord is not careful the negotiated changes in one lease could conflict with the negotiated terms in a neighbor’s lease.  It will be far simpler for a landlord to not negotiate different terms for a lease.  And that is probably what is going to happen.

We will see if this bill moves along in the legislative process.

Legis Update: Bill to benefit contractors, sort of . . .

Written by Mike Pisauro on February 22nd, 2010 in Contracts, Courts, Home Improvement | No Comments »

S1032 sponsored by Connors would allow a contractor or a homeowner to bring a lawsuit in the county where the property is located if the lawsuit is under the Contractor’s Registration Act.  While I am not sure why a contractor would be suing under the act, the act changes the where a plaintiff can file a lawsuit.

Normally, lawsuits over $15,000 are filed in the Law Division of the Superior Court of NJ.  In the Law Division a plaintiff can file suit where they live, where a defendant lives, or where the action occurred.  That would mean a contractor could file suit in Law Division in the county where their business is located.  S1032 does not change this.  S1032 is meant for cases under $15,000.  For cases under $15,000 a lawsuit can be filed in the Special Civil Part.  In the Special Civil Part a lawsuit can only be venued where at least one of the defendants residences.  S1032 is meant to cover these kinds of cases.  The bill statement provides that its intent is for:

Home improvement contractors who are located in the State’s beach communities have found it difficult to pursue lawsuits against homeowners who have defaulted on payments for services rendered because these homeowners do not live in the same counties as their vacation homes.

So under the bill when a contractor does work on a shore house where the owner does not live, they can do not have to go to the county where the owner lives, but can file suit in the county where they did work.  The contractor could have always filed in law division no matter what the amount of damages, but the down side would be that a lawsuit in the law division can take several years before there is trial.  In Special Civil Part the cases move much faster.

Since the bill only applies to non-commercial property, hopefully the courts will not consider purely rental properties as commercial.  If so the bill would not apply and the contractor would be back to either filing in Law Division or filing the lawsuit in the county where the property owner lives.  Another work around would be for the contractor’s contract to provide where a lawsuit may be filed.