JOSE PICADO AND TAMMY DOAN v. MICHAEL SOLLECITO

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2535-05T12535-05T1

JOSE PICADO AND

TAMMY DOAN,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

MICHAEL SOLLECITO,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Submitted December 6, 2006 - Decided December 21, 2006

Before Judges Winkelstein and Baxter.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Hudson County, HUD-SC-2674-05.

Michael Sollecito, appellant pro se.

Respondents did not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Following a nonjury trial, defendant/landlord Michael Sollecito appeals from a Special Civil Part judgment in the sum of $2056.25 against him for improperly withholding the plaintiffs/tenants' security deposit. See N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1. We affirm the judgment in favor of plaintiffs but modify the amount of the award.

Plaintiffs and defendant entered into a residential lease dated March 16, 2005, which included a six-month term to begin on April 1, 2005, and end on September 30, 2005. Rent was $1060 per month, and plaintiffs paid defendant a security deposit of $1500. The lease further provided that the tenants could remain in possession after the expiration of the lease term, on a month-to-month basis, with either party having the right to terminate the lease on thirty days written notice to the other. During the trial, defendant offered a copy of a lease that contained an additional provision, which read: "Should lessee decide not to renew or hold over the lease, lessee shall provide a 30 day written notice to lessor prior to the current expiration date of lease." Plaintiffs' copy of the lease did not contain that provision.

By written notice dated August 13, 2005, submitted to defendant on September 8, 2005, plaintiffs notified defendant that they would vacate the premises by October 1, 2005. They vacated the property on September 30, 2005.

In a letter dated October 28, 2005, defendant itemized deductions he made from the security deposit, which included $530 for one-half of October's rent, $20 for replacement items, $20 for cleaning, and an $8 administrative fee; for total deductions of $558. Defendant then subtracted that sum from $1501.75, the amount of the security deposit plus accrued interest, and refunded the $943.75 difference to plaintiffs.

The trial judge rejected defendant's argument that plaintiffs were required to provide thirty days notice, even though they vacated the premises by October 1, 2005. In other words, the judge concluded that so long as plaintiffs vacated by the end of the original six-month term, no notice was required.

Consequently, the judge disallowed the $530 itemized deduction for one-half of October's rent. He also concluded that plaintiffs did not leave the premises in a condition that required any expense on the part of defendant. The judge thus disallowed the remaining deductions listed in defendant's letter. The court then doubled the $1500 security deposit, arriving at a sum of $3000, subtracted the $943.75 defendant had returned to plaintiffs, and arrived at a damages award of $2056.25.

On appeal, defendant makes two arguments. First, he asserts that the lease required plaintiffs to provide him with a thirty-day notice before vacating the premises. Second, he claims that even if damages were appropriate, the court should not have doubled the security deposit first before deducting the amount returned, but instead should have doubled the net amount defendant owed to plaintiffs.

Having considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and the applicable law, we find no error with the court's conclusion that plaintiffs were not required to provide a thirty-day notice to defendant before vacating the premises on September 30, 2005. As the judge found, a reasonable interpretation of the lease did not require any notice if plaintiffs vacated the premises during the initial six-month term. The notice provision did not become effective unless plaintiffs held over, which they did not.

We also agree that defendant's deductions of $558 from the security deposit were not warranted. Where we part with the trial judge is his methodology in computing damages.

N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1 provides, in part, that the landlord is obligated to "return . . . the sum [paid for security] plus the tenant's portion of the interest or earnings accumulated thereon, less any charges expended in accordance with the terms of a . . . lease . . . to the tenant." Further, if the landlord violates the statute, "the court . . . shall award recovery of double the amount of said monies." Ibid. We have interpreted this statute to mean that only the portion of the security deposit that is unlawfully withheld may be doubled. Lorril Co. v. La Corte, 352 N.J. Super. 433, 442 (App. Div. 2002). Here, the judge doubled more than the amount of the security deposit that the landlord wrongly withheld.

We calculate defendant's obligation as follows. The amount of the security deposit, plus accrued interest, was $1501.75. Defendant returned $943.75 to plaintiffs. That left $558 improperly withheld. Doubling that amount, the judgment should have been for $1116. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to enter judgment for that sum.

Affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded.

 

Whether the amount of accrued interest is correct has not been raised on appeal.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2535-05T1

December 21, 2006