Re: Unauthorized occupant - Landlord Forum thread 342722

Re: Unauthorized occupant by MrDan (Georgia) on February 3, 2016 @10:56

This is blizzard from many stand points.

First problem;

In New Jersey, It is illegal to discriminate against a prospective or current tenant because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, gender identity or expression, marital status, civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, actual or perceived physical or mental disability, ancestry, nationality, domestic partner status, or source of lawful income used for mortgage or rental payments.

It is also illegal to place any advertisement or make any statements or utterances that express, - directly or indirectly, any limitations to offer housing based on any of those characteristics.

Second problem;

You will have a hard time defending an occupancy standard of only one person in a one bedroom apartment.

HUD has often sued landlords for just limiting two occupants per bedroom unless special circumstances applied.

There is no 'Federal Occupancy Standard', in fact Federal law prohibits the creation of any such occupancy standards.

Third problem;

Your 'Guest Policy' requirements, after a quick law reference, indicate that they are not enforceable under New Jersey law as they are unreasonable compared to others that were less restrictive and were struck down by your State Supreme Court.

Your lease requirement that a person becomes an occupant "more than 4 days or night there in calendar month" is vague and unenforceable and similar lease clause have been struck down by New Jersey Courts.

Issuing a 'fine' against the tenant for having guest, including children over for a few days is asinine just on principle of fairness. Another requirement by New Jersey law is that a lease clause, rule or requirement be both fair and reasonable or it's void and unenforceable. If a fine exceeds an amount reasonably related to the damages suffered by the landlord, the fine will be considered a penalty and will not be enforceable. So the question is, are you indeed accessing a 'fine' or are you just applying an additional amount of rent to accommodate the extra occupant?

"A tenant has the right to have friends or relatives visit for a few days without getting permission from the landlord. A restrictive 'guest policy' lease provision cannot interfere with the tenants covenant of quiet enjoyment set forth under State law" (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division)

Curious how you would defend that a person is not an 'occupant' but yet you require additional payment for an extra occupant under your lease terms.

Fair Housing violations;

Your lease would disallow such regular visitors as babysitters and visiting care providers for the elderly or disabled. A clear violation of Federal Law.

The tenant could not have the same guest on continuous weekends, entertain a relative or friend for five continuous days or exercise a two-week visitation or regular weekend visitation with the tenant's child pursuant to a shared custody or visitation arrangement. (Remember all lease terms must be applied to all tenants equally)

It would bar "reoccurring visits" by adult persons or children within a 30 day period.

"We served her notice for fines for all violations" This is clearly in violation of the tenants rights to reasonably enjoy her apartment. The tenants has rights under both State and Federal law.

A landlord cannot levy fines for children visiting. Under Fair Housing laws, a landlord cannot place restrictions on children unless it involves a health issue. It's unbelievable that a landlord could impose additional fees because someone had children visiting them and that would pass mustered with Fair Housing laws.

Under the Fair Housing Act, you seem to have discriminated against this tenant on several issues. Some where along the line, this tenant perhaps will learn of her rights and file discrimination charges for fair housing violations.

"Will this make my case stronger?" The risk here is that the tenant sues in State or Federal court or brings charges under HUD for discrimination and whether you can propose a valid legal defense. The court does not recognize ignorance as a defense to discrimination charges. Your lease requirements and your imposed fines would appear to bolster the tenants claim of discrimination.

Bad landlords result in bad laws. It would be a sad thing if bad laws were passed that impact the majority just because of a small minority.

[ Reply ] [ Return to forum ]