A New Jersey appellate court has issued a significant ruling clarifying a tenant’s right to avoid eviction for non-payment of rent under the “Stack Amendment,” concluding that tenants only need to pay the amount of rent specified in the original Judgment of Possession (JOP).
The decision, handed down by the Appellate Division, settles a dispute over the precise amount a tenant must tender within a narrow three-business-day window after a warrant for removal is posted—a window created by the 2020 Stack Amendment to the Fair Eviction Notice Act.
Plaintiff Fairkings Partners, LLC, which operates The Kingsley apartment complex, appealed a trial court order that favored the tenant, Essence L. Daniels. Fairkings argued that to stop the eviction, Ms. Daniels should be required to pay not just the back rent listed in the JOP, but also any rent that accrued between the JOP being entered and the day she attempted to pay.
However, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s interpretation, holding that the Stack Amendment provides a statutory right for tenants to avoid eviction by paying the specific amount of rent already adjudicated by the court in the JOP.
The Core Dispute: What Amount Stops Eviction?
The case centered on interpreting the phrase “rent payment” within N.J.S.A. 2A:42-10.16a. When a tenant defaults on rent, a landlord can seek a JOP under the Anti-Eviction Act (A-E Act). If a warrant for removal is posted, the Stack Amendment grants the tenant three business days to submit a “rent payment” to avoid being locked out.
The central question was whether this payment must cover only the rent arrears fixed in the JOP (in this case, $5,482.31), or the JOP amount plus any subsequent rent accrued during the three-day cure period.
The Appellate Division, speaking through Judge Gilson, determined that linking the cure amount to the JOP provides necessary clarity and upholds the remedial purpose of tenant protection laws.
“We interpret the Stack Amendment to allow the tenant to pay the amount set forth in the JOP, because the JOP is the judicial determination that allows a landlord to evict a tenant under the Anti-Eviction Act,” the opinion stated.
Harmonizing Eviction Law and Tenant Rights
The court emphasized the need to read the Stack Amendment in harmony with the existing A-E Act. Under the A-E Act, when a judge issues a JOP for non-payment, the court must specify the exact amount of rent due and owing. This figure traditionally serves as the benchmark for a tenant seeking relief.
The court found it illogical to require a tenant, operating under a strict three-day deadline following a lockout notice, to calculate and pay a moving target that includes rent accrued during that very short period.
“If the landlord can demand rent greater than set forth in the JOP, there could be circumstances where tenants are required to pay amounts that include costs and fees beyond what is allowed in a lease,” the opinion noted, citing prior case law stressing that eviction amounts must be explicitly itemized for tenants to make informed decisions.
Distinguishing from Past Rulings
Fairkings argued that the ruling contradicted established precedent, specifically citing the 1994 case *Housing Authority of Morristown v. Little*. In *Little*, the Supreme Court allowed a tenant to successfully vacate a default JOP after paying the *full* amount of rent due as of the date of payment, following the execution of the warrant.
The Appellate Division distinguished this scenario by noting the Stack Amendment creates a *statutory* right that supersedes reliance on the court’s *equitable* powers, which was the basis for the relief in *Little*. The Stack Amendment establishes a fixed statutory mechanism, not one dependent on a judge’s discretion post-judgment.
Judicial Economy Supported by Clarity
The landlord also contended that limiting the payment to the JOP amount would harm judicial economy by forcing landlords to file new eviction actions for any rent that built up between the JOP and the final payment.
The Appellate Division rejected this argument, asserting that the opposite is true. A clear, fixed payment amount streamlines the process. If the tenant pays the JOP amount on time, the eviction case is dismissed promptly. If the tenant only pays the JOP amount but still owes subsequent rent, the landlord retains the right to pursue those later arrears through separate legal channels, such as a small claims action.
“This clear process streamlines resolution and minimizes unnecessary disputes,” the court concluded, affirming the trial court’s decision.
For Ms. Daniels, the ruling meant she could successfully avoid eviction by tendering the $5,482.31 specified in the initial judgment. Following the appellate ruling, she reportedly paid the required amount, and the case was marked as “disposed.”
The amicus curiae brief filed by Seton Hall University School of Law’s Center for Social Justice, Housing Justice Project, supported the tenant’s position, arguing that demanding more than the JOP amount would create an unreasonable and uncertain burden on tenants facing imminent removal.