HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SALEM v. ALBERT J. FIELDS, JR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE

CITY OF SALEM,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALBERT J. FIELDS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

October 4, 2016

Submitted September 15, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Salem County, Docket No. LT-928-13.

Albert J. Fields, Jr., appellant pro se.

Robinson & Robinson, L.L.C., attorneys for respondent (Matthew J. Robinson, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this landlord tenant matter, defendant appeals from an October 30, 2014 order, denying his motion to vacate a judgment of possession and a January 20, 2015 order denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

Defendant was a tenant in the federally subsidized Salem Housing Authority (Authority) complex. The Authority is overseen by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Pursuant to HUD regulations 24 C.F.R. 5.628 and 5.630, a tenant's rent is based on a percentage of his or her income, or a minimum monthly payment of fifty dollars. In June 2013, the Authority determined defendant had misrepresented or failed to correctly report the amount of income upon which his rent was based. On August 5, 2013, the Authority notified defendant his failure to timely report an increase in his income resulted in a rent recalculation, showing he owed an additional $2521. The letter warned the Authority was required to initiate eviction proceedings if defendant failed to pay recalculated rent by August 31, 2013. The letter also advised defendant he had the right to contest the finding and offered instructions as to how to request a formal hearing pursuant to HUD regulation, 24 C.F.R. 966.55, which as of March 2016 is found at 24 C.F.R. 966.56.

Defendant was served with a Notice of Termination for non-payment of rent and a Verified Complaint for Judgment of Possession on September 26, 2013. A judgment of possession was entered October 18, 2013, after a trial. Defendant moved to vacate the order asserting fraud by the Authority misrepresenting that defendant had been offered the opportunity for a hearing. Defendant also claimed the judgment was not equitable, resulting in revocation of his right of emergency housing assistance for six months.

Defendant's motion was denied. Defendant then moved for reconsideration, which was also denied. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant argues the trial judge erroneously concluded the Authority's August 5, 2013 letter satisfied the Authority's obligation to notify defendant of his right to a hearing and the trial judge abused his discretion in denying defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of possession. Specifically, defendant argues he was not given an informal grievance hearing to which he was entitled. We disagree and affirm for the reasons explained by Judge Darrell Fineman in his thorough and well-reasoned written decisions of October 30, 2014, and January 20, 2015.

It is within the trial court's sound discretion, guided by equitable principles, to decide whether relief should be granted pursuant to Rule 4:50-1. Hous. Auth. v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994). That decision "will be left undisturbed unless it represents a clear abuse of discretion." Ibid.

In his October 30, 2014 decision, Judge Fineman considered the arguments raised by defendant, reviewed the evidence in the record and determined defendant had established no basis to vacate the judgment. The trial court entering the judgment of possession had jurisdiction, and the Authority had established a right to possession, as well as compliance with the notice and grievance requirements set forth in 24 C.F.R. 966.54-55. Moreover, the record demonstrated that defendant admitted during trial he had not requested a hearing despite having been advised of his rights thereto.

In addressing defendant's motion for reconsideration, Judge Fineman explained defendant failed to meet the standards for relief enunciated in Rule 4:49-2, and had not demonstrated that the court's previous decision was based on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis. We discern no reason to disturb his determinations.

Affirmed.