Young v. Savinon
201 N.J. Super. 1, 492 A.2d 385 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A 'no pets' provision in a renewal lease is not reasonable and thus unenforceable under New Jersey's Anti-Eviction Act when applied retroactively to tenants who were permitted to have pets by a prior landlord, where the new landlord was aware of the pets upon purchase, and where tenants demonstrate significant reliance and emotional attachment to the animals, the loss of which would cause them serious hardship.
Facts:
- Defendants Flora Possumato, Victor Savinon, and Milagros Brosonski were long-term tenants in an apartment building, and each owned a dog for many years.
- The previous landlord of the building permitted tenants to own pets, and the defendants all moved in with their dogs under this policy.
- George Young purchased the building with the knowledge that several tenants, including the defendants, owned pets.
- Young, who is personally afraid of dogs, purchased the property intending to force tenants to either remove their pets or leave.
- Upon lease renewal, Young introduced a new 'no pets' provision into the tenants' leases.
- The tenants' dogs were elderly (12-14 years old), provided a sense of security in a high-crime area, and had not been the subject of any significant complaints.
- Expert psychological testimony established that forcing the tenants to give up their pets would cause them significant grief, depression, and potential adverse health consequences comparable to losing a family member.
Procedural Posture:
- George Young (plaintiff) filed complaints in the Special Civil Part (trial court) seeking to dispossess tenants Victor Savinon, Flora Possumato, and Milagros Brosonski (defendants) for violating a new 'no pets' provision in their leases.
- After an initial trial, the complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds.
- Following a second trial, the trial court granted judgments for possession in favor of Young, ruling that it was bound by the precedent set in Terhune Courts v. Sgambati.
- The tenants (defendants-appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a 'no pets' provision, introduced by a new landlord in a renewal lease, reasonable and enforceable under New Jersey's Anti-Eviction Act against long-term tenants who were permitted to have pets by the previous landlord?
Opinions:
Majority - Dreier, J.A.D.
No. The 'no pets' provision is not reasonable and enforceable under these circumstances. The reasonableness of a lease term change under the Anti-Eviction Act must be evaluated by considering the circumstances of both the landlord and the tenant, not just the landlord's interests. The conduct of the prior landlord, who knowingly permitted the tenants to have pets, created an implied agreement that transcended the terms of any single lease. The new landlord, Young, purchased the property aware of the pets and cannot possess greater rights than his predecessor. Given the tenants' long-standing reliance, the lack of any nuisance from the pets, and the severe psychological and physical harm the tenants would suffer from losing their pets, it is unreasonable to retroactively enforce the new 'no pets' provision against them and their current animals.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinterprets the 'reasonableness' standard under New Jersey's Anti-Eviction Act, shifting from a landlord-centric view to a balancing test that incorporates the tenant's specific circumstances. It establishes a precedent that protects long-term tenants who relied on a landlord's prior express or implied permission to keep a pet. The ruling effectively 'grandfathers in' existing pets under specific conditions, requiring trial courts to conduct a fact-sensitive inquiry into the history of the tenancy and the potential hardship on the tenant before enforcing a newly imposed 'no pets' clause.
