Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Darette Benton v. Arthur Fulop

March 13, 2012

DARETTE BENTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR FULOP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Union County, Docket No. DC-023660-10.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 16, 2012

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

Plaintiff Darette Benton (tenant) appeals from a Special Civil Part order dismissing her complaint against defendant Arthur Fulop (landlord). The tenant sought double the amount of her security deposit with interest in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Security Deposit Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 46:8-19 to -26. The matter was tried on February 14, 2011.

On appeal, the tenant argues that the trial court erred "by limiting her ability to present proofs" and by "entering judgment without sufficient factual support in the record for the deductions made by the landlord against the security deposit." After examining the record and applicable law in light of these contentions, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

The parties were the only witnesses to testify. During the trial, it was established that in 1998, the tenant paid a security deposit to the landlord in the amount of $1575, which was never deposited into an interest-bearing account at a financial institution as required by N.J.S.A. 46:8-19. After the tenant vacated the apartment on July 6, 2005, her security deposit was not returned. In a letter dated August 3, 2005, the landlord explained that the security deposit "in the amount of $1,575.00" was applied to his costs and expenses, which he itemized as follows:

July 2005 rent: $1,205.00 Carpet cleaning: $180.00 Removal of sofa & misc. items $50.00 3 light fixtures & door locks $131.70 Installation for above $75.00 TOTAL $1,641.70 The tenant testified that "none of [the information in the landlord's letter] was true." Nevertheless, she was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the landlord or to present testimony regarding any of the deductions from her security deposit. After reviewing the landlord's itemized deductions from the security deposit, the court entered a judgment in favor of the landlord:

All right.

"This is to inform that your security amount of 1575 was applied towards the following: July 2005 rent 1205, carpet cleaning 180; removal of sofa 50; three light fixtures and door locks." There's nothing unreasonable about this.

[THE TENANT]: But Your Honor, that's not true. There [were no] ceiling fixtures.

THE COURT: So therefore since the money added up to more than the security . . . there was no money due you.

[THE TENANT]: Yes, there was, Your Honor. He never put it in the bank.

THE COURT: Well, I'm sorry; this case is over; it's dismissed. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.