FELICIA K. BINDLER v. PAUL HIRA
Annotate this CaseNOT 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 binding only 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-1171-20
FELICIA K. BINDLER,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PAUL HIRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted January 20, 2022 – Decided March 9, 2022
Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. DC-002070-
20.
Paul Hira, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In this landlord-tenant dispute, defendant Paul Hira appeals pro se from a
November 16, 2020 judgment against him in the amount of $14,452 plus court
costs. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Daniel L.
Weiss's oral opinion. We add the following comments.
On July 21, 2009, the parties entered into a lease agreement for a three-
story townhome. The lease required plaintiff to pay a one-and-a-half-month
security deposit of $3,375. Further, the lease required her to "pay an additional
[two months'] rent up front. Will be applied to the end." The lease did not
specify where the security deposit was being maintained, and defendant never
informed plaintiff of the location of the account. On August 9, 2009, plaintiff
paid the $3,375 security deposit and the $4,500 additional security, totaling
$7,875. She moved into the residence on August 10, 2009.
In August 2018, plaintiff was given a thirty-day notice to vacate so
defendant could sell the property. Plaintiff moved out and had a final walk -
through inspection on September 15, 2018. Plaintiff recorded the walk-through,
which depicted defendant stating plaintiff had left the residence in good
condition. Plaintiff admitted she did not pay the $2,400 rent for September.
On September 29, 2018, defendant drafted a statement listing damages to
the property which were allegedly discovered during an independent inspection
conducted on September 20, 2018. The statement listed damages including
termite infestation, garage and laundry room damage, garage door and frame
A-1171-20
2
damage, bathroom damage, and missing rear sliding doors. Defendant
calculated damage repair costs of $4,973.19 and a back-rent balance of
$4,530.65, less the cost of the security deposit with one percent interest of
$2,353.71,1 for a total balance owed of $7,150.13. Defendant's "calculations"
came from home repair estimate websites such as fixr.com and
homeadvisor.com. Defendant did not pay anyone to make the repairs.
On February 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging defendant failed
to return the security deposit and sought $12,292 in damages. On April 20,
2020, defendant answered and counterclaimed for unpaid rent, repairs, and
damages. On November 16, 2020, the parties appeared, both pro se, for trial.
After hearing the testimony and reviewing the documents submitted by
the parties, the judge entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $14,452 plus
court costs. The judge found that
[t]he testimony of the defendant is simply not credible.
Not at all. It almost appeared to the [c]ourt as if this
defendant was making up his testimony as it went
along. And in addition, as if he was creating documents
to be used as exhibits for the [c]ourt. There is
absolutely no proof whatsoever . . . that the alleged
email that he submitted in his exhibits was ever sent to
the plaintiff. The [c]ourt believes the plaintiff that she
never received any documents whatsoever from the
defendant.
1
In this statement, defendant lists the security deposit as $2,250.
A-1171-20
3
Further, the judge reasoned that the evidence "makes it abundantly clear
. . . that the plaintiff did not cause any of the damages." "In fact, [the evidence]
shows all the issues being caused by either the defendant himself, or perhaps by
the homeowner’s association." The judge noted that none of the claimed items
were even in plaintiff's control.
Regarding the security deposit, the judge stated, "there was an extreme
amount that was from the inception of this agreement illegal." The judge found
"plaintiff was never notified about where the funds were maintained. And these
were never kept in a separate interest-bearing account, and she never received
her [thirty]-day notice after her departure from the home." The judge awarded
"damages of [$]7,875 times [two], which is [$]15,750," and added "the [seven]
percent interest of $1,102.50" for a total of "$16,852.50 less the September rent
unpaid of $2,400."
On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments for our
consideration:
POINT I
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDG[]MENT TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE
SECURITY DEPOSIT OF $3[,]375 AND THE
$4[,]500 ([TWO] MONTHS ADVANCE PAYMENT
OF RENT) WAS GIVEN ON THE SAME DAY[,]
A-1171-20
4
AUGUST 9, 2009[,] AND WAS ONE
TRANSACTION.
POINT II
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE LAW
ACCORDING TO SECURITY DEPOSIT LAW
46[:]8-21.1 RETURN OF DEPOSIT; DISPLACED
TENANT; TERMINATION OF LEASE; CIVIL
PENALTIES, CERTAIN.
POINT III
TRIAL COURT MADE AN ERROR IN THE FACTS
OF THE CASE RESULTING IN KEY PIECE OF
EVIDENCE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
When reviewing a decision in a non-jury trial matter, we "give deference
to the trial court that heard the witnesses, sifted the competing evidence, and
made reasoned conclusions." Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239, 254
(2015). "[W]e do not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
trial judge unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by
or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence
as to offend the interests of justice[.]" Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, SLA, 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011) (internal quotations omitted). In reviewing the judge's
findings, this court "do[es] not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of
witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence." Mountain Hill, LLC v.
Twp. of Middletown, 399 N.J. Super. 486, 498 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting State
A-1171-20
5
v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997)). This court owes no deference, however,
to the judge's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from
established facts. Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.2, a security deposit cannot exceed one and
a half times the amount of one month's rent. N.J.S.A. 46:8-19 requires that a
security deposit must be placed in a separate account and the landlord must
notify the tenant, in writing, of the name and address where the funds are being
held within thirty days of the receipt of the security deposit. Furthermore,
[i]f the person receiving a security deposit fails to
invest or deposit the security money in the manner
required under this section or to provide the notice or
pay the interest to the tenant as required under this
subsection, the tenant may give written notice to that
person that such security money plus an amount
representing interest at the rate of seven percent per
annum be applied on account of rent payment or
payments due or to become due from the tenant . . . .
[N.J.S.A. 46:8-19(c).]
Finally, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1,
[i]n any action by a tenant . . . for the return of moneys
due under this section, the court upon finding for the
tenant . . . shall award recovery of double the amount
of said moneys, together with full costs of any action
and, in the court’s discretion, reasonable attorney’s
fees.
A-1171-20
6
Guided by the well-established law, we conclude the judge's factual
findings are supported by the record and his legal conclusions are unassailable.
We therefore reject defendant's meritless arguments and affirm.
To the extent we have not specifically addressed defendant's remaining
arguments, we find they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1171-20
7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
