I need to evict a tenant in Lakewood ASAP

[aygart]

None of the discussions about limits of NJ legal protections apply when there is a contract that gives greater protection. The contract is very clear that there is no right to evict even during automatic renewals.





The rent increase language is equally clear. From the way I am reading it there should be no make-up raises for missed years either.

[drosenberg88429]

And when you say "for any reason with reasonable cause", please clarify?

Refusal to comply with terms of new contract that includes rent increase consistent with market norms should constitute good cause, no? Unless the entire Lakewood is automatically rent controlled, and the month to month tenancy is purely in favor of the tenant while not giving the landlord any additional latitude after the lease agreement finishes, which I find to be a strange notion.

https://accidentalrental.com/nj-eviction-laws/

[dm123]

does not allow the landlord to terminate the contract without cause. All other discussions are moot because the contract is binding.

Do they clarify what is meant by "good cause"?

[Sienna]

Basically everyone is saying that if it would be a legal unit, he would have no legal (and therefore halachic) leg to stand on, becuase the law only allows for eviction for coause?
The question is how the batei dinim would apply the law to a illegal unit?

It is a legal unit

[drosenberg88429]

Do they clarify what is meant by "good cause"?

No. To be honest, the contract does insinuate that the current rent being inconsistent with market is not a good cause. The agreement in that regard appears to be entirely one sided, and basically makes every rental into a rent control unit, which I find to be absurd even for a liberal town like Lakewood.


However, my sentiment aside, a contract is a contract, no matter who it hurts or how unfair I think it is.

[aygart]

I fully understand the future landlord trying to get the tenant to agree to a raise in rent above the 5%, but at the end of the day, the contact is clear and binding. The rent and contract terms are things the buyer knew or should have known when agreeing on a price for the house. The renter has no obligation at all to agree to a penny higher than 5% and any expectation of more is out of place. The 30-40% raise that the tenant agreed to was nothing but a concession on their part. The attitude that they have an obligation to pay for the mortgage that you agreed to is ridiculous. Be careful because if you try to evict them then you may lose the concession that they offered and will be left with a raise of 5% until they move out.

[aygart]

Refusal to comply with terms of new contract that includes rent increase consistent with market norms should constitute good cause, no? Unless the entire Lakewood is automatically rent controlled, and the month to month tenancy is purely in favor of the tenant while not giving the landlord any additional latitude after the lease agreement finishes, which I find to be a strange notion.

https://accidentalrental.com/nj-eviction-laws/

How is wanting to keep to an already executed contract good cause?

[ExGingi]

Technically, I believe so. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. In reality, you can keep increasing rent by the max annually. And often those increases will outpace the market and the tenant will leave on his own. But it is standard practice in real estate for landlords to offer existing tenants financial incentives to move out.

@Sienna remember PGFHGS.

In Israel, they have an expression בכביש אל תהיה צודק, תהיה חכם (and I'm not sure that in this specific case you are צודק).

The fact that the previous landlord didn't regularly raise rents is a problem, and the existing contract should have served as a bargaining point for you to lower the purchase price. At this point you are stuck with it. Raising residential rent by 75% is harsh, even if you have some perceived moral justification (market rates). You should be happy with the fact that the tenant is willing to be somewhat reasonable and agreeing to a 30% increase as stated. Grab it, and offer some kind of compromise or incentive for the tenant to either bring it up to market rate within a reasonable time, or move out.

Allow me to suggest a compromise that might work (I proposed this years ago to two friends of mine where one was the landlord wanting to expand his living space, and the other was a tenant who was there even before the current landlord and was paying below market rent):

Make monthly increases of $200 to the rent. If he moves out within X number of months, he gets back a certain percentage of the increases he paid (the larger you offer as a refund the faster he will move out).

This arrangement might also be too harsh for the tenant, but the gist of it is the point. Let the tenant either ease into market rate, or leave, and give the tenant an incentive to work with you.

[drosenberg88429]

How is wanting to keep to an already executed contract good cause?

The NJ law in of itself appears to give either party the right to ask for new terms, and failure to agree with those new terms would appear to be grounds for termination. This is what the link quoted says too.

However, the BD Meisharim contract seems to be a lot tougher on the landlord than NJ law is, and caps the rent increase which can be included in the new agreement.

[drosenberg88429]

I'm pretty surprised that this contract became the standard in Lakewood, honestly.

[Yehuda57]

I fully understand the future landlord trying to get the tenant to agree to a raise in rent above the 5%, but at the end of the day, the contact is clear and binding. The rent and contract terms are things the buyer knew or should have known when agreeing on a price for the house. The renter has no obligation at all to agree to a penny higher than 5% and any expectation of more is out of place. The 30-40% raise that the tenant agreed to was nothing but a concession on their part. The attitude that they have an obligation to pay for the mortgage that you agreed to is ridiculous. Be careful because if you try to evict them then you may lose the concession that they offered and will be left with a raise of 5% until they move out.

And if the tenant made the concession thinking OP was within their rights to raise the rent, there's a non-zero chance they will see this thread, discover their rights, and rescind that offer

[aygart]

The NJ law in of itself appears to give either party the right to ask for new terms, and failure to agree with those new terms would appear to be grounds for termination. This is what the link quoted says too.

However, the BD Meisharim contract seems to be a lot tougher on the landlord than NJ law is, and caps the rent increase which can be included in the new agreement.

The NJ law only requires "reasonable cause"

[Yehuda57]

I fully understand the future landlord trying to get the tenant to agree to a raise in rent above the 5%, but at the end of the day, the contact is clear and binding. The rent and contract terms are things the buyer knew or should have known when agreeing on a price for the house. The renter has no obligation at all to agree to a penny higher than 5% and any expectation of more is out of place. The 30-40% raise that the tenant agreed to was nothing but a concession on their part. The attitude that they have an obligation to pay for the mortgage that you agreed to is ridiculous. Be careful because if you try to evict them then you may lose the concession that they offered and will be left with a raise of 5% until they move out.

From the whole thread, TITCR to OP.

[avromie7]

The NJ law in of itself appears to give either party the right to ask for new reasonable terms, and failure to agree with those new terms would appear to be grounds for termination. This is what the link quoted says too.

However, the BD Meisharim contract seems to be a lot tougher on the landlord than NJ law is, and caps the rent increase which can be included in the new agreement.

FTFY. You'd be hard pressed to find a BD or Judge saying a 5% limit on increases is too low and allowing a 75% increase is reasonable.

[drosenberg88429]

FTFY. You'd be hard pressed to find a BD or Judge saying a 5% limit on increases is too low and allowing a 75% increase is reasonable.

Prevailing market conditions and no rent increases for a prolonged period of time are disregarded? That sounds unfair to the landlord and in blatant denial of the basic laws of economics.

[imayid2]

The renter has no obligation at all to agree to a penny higher than 5% and any expectation of more is out of place. The 30-40% raise that the tenant agreed to was nothing but a concession on their part.

FWIU this is only if the 5% was actualized that past 5 years. If not OP can do that retroactively.

[drosenberg88429]

The NJ law only requires "reasonable cause"

Right. Both NJ law and BD M allow for termination and refusal to renew due to good cause. However, BD M, further on in the contract, appears to preclude rent increases above a predetermined amount to be cited as good cause.

[drosenberg88429]

FWIU this is only if the 5% was actualized that past 5 years. If not OP can do that retroactively.

BD M contract appears to disallow this too.

[aygart]

Right. Both NJ law and BD M allow for termination and refusal to renew due to good cause. However, BD M, further on in the contract, appears to preclude rent increases above a predetermined amount to be cited as good cause.

Reasonable cause and good cause are not the same thing.

[aygart]

FWIU this is only if the 5% was actualized that past 5 years. If not OP can do that retroactively.

Where do you see that here?

The rent increase language is equally clear. From the way I am reading it there should be no make-up raises for missed years either.