HAMILTON STATION APARTMENTS, LLC VS. GISELLE TRUJILLO (LT-6756-19, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2637-19
HAMILTON STATION
APARTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GISELLE TRUJILLO and
VICTOR ABREU,
Defendants-Appellants.
___________________________
Submitted May 5, 2021 – Decided June 23, 2021
Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Docket No. LT-6756-19.
Giselle Trujillo and Victor Abreu, appellants pro se.
The Weingarten Law Firm, LLC, attorneys for the
respondent (Douglas K. Wolfson, of counsel and on the
brief; Meir S. Kalish, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendants Giselle Trujillo and Victor Abreu appeal from the Special
Civil Part judge's December 20, 2019 order entering default judgment of
possession in favor of plaintiff Hamilton Station Apartments, LLC (Hamilton
Station). Defendants contend that the judge erred in entering a default judgment
as he violated multiple court rules and accuse the judge and Hamilton Station
of participating in a conspiracy against them. We disagree and affirm.
Defendants are tenants at Hamilton Station's apartment complex under a
written lease agreement. In November 2019, they defaulted on their lease when
their automatic monthly lease payment was rejected due to insufficient funds.
In accordance with the lease, an attorney's fee of $350 was added to defendants'
account balance along with unpaid rent. Hamilton Station promptly filed
eviction proceedings against defendants.
On December 20, default judgment of possession was entered in favor of
Hamilton Station because defendants failed to appear for trial. A warrant for
removal was issued on December 31.
On January 16, 2020, the judge granted defendants' request to stay the
warrant of removal until March 31, 2020, on the condition that they pay into
court $3,167.28, the full amount due at the time plus subsequent rents due.
Defendants paid $3,167.28 as well as their February and March rents, therefore
A-2637-19
2
Hamilton Station did not request execution of the warrant of removal.
Defendants did not reserve their rights to contest the amount of the outstanding
rent, attorney's fees, and court costs.
With the tenancy proceedings closed, defendants filed their notice of
appeal. Thereafter, they filed separate motions with this court requesting a
"refund of all attorneys and court fees and complaint against the judge for
monetary relief" and an investigation by the federal government and the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development be ordered by this court.
Both motions were denied.
We begin by noting that defendant's brief is non-compliant with our court
rules. Their brief contains no: point headings, R. 2:6-2(a)(6); table of citations,
R. 2:6-2(a)(2); or citations to court rules, R. 2:6-2(a)(6). Despite these
deficiencies, we address the merits of defendants' contentions. Cf. Cherry Hill
Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 194 N.J. Super. 282, 283-84 (App. Div.
1984) (holding that a failure to comply with the rules on appeal is s ufficient
reason for dismissal of the appeal).
Defendants contend that the judge erred in entering a default judgment of
possession against them because he knew they were present at the courthouse
for trial on December 20, 2020, and had paid their outstanding rent. They assert
A-2637-19
3
the default judgment must therefore be "removed and corrected from [their]
records." We disagree.
Defendants never challenged the issuance of the default judgment by
moving before the trial court to vacate the default judgment. Consequently, their
contention should not be considered by this court as it does not "go to the
jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest." Nieder
v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (quoting Reynolds Offset Co.,
Inc. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div. 1959)).
That said, the issue is now moot as the "decision sought in [this] matter
. . . . can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." Deutsche Bank
Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 221-22 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting
Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006)).
Because the warrant of removal was not executed by Hamilton Station after
defendants paid outstanding rent, attorney's fees, and costs, vacating the default
judgment would have had no practical effect on defendants' lease. Moreover,
defendants did not request reservation of their rights to contest the amount due
to Hamilton Station.
A-2637-19
4
We do not address any of defendants' remaining arguments because we
conclude they are wholly without merit and do not warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirm.
A-2637-19
5