Audubon Mutual Housing Corporation v. Erik Redfield and Kelly Ann Redfield ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3454-21
AUDUBON MUTUAL
HOUSING CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ERIK REDFIELD and
KELLY ANN REDFIELD,
a/k/a KELLY REDFIELD,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________
Submitted December 11, 2023 – Decided February 15, 2024
Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Camden County, Docket No.
C-000011-22.
South Jersey Legal Services Inc., attorneys for
appellants (Sonia Leona Bell, on the brief).
Thatcher Passarella, PC, attorneys for respondent
(David A. Thatcher, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendants Erik Redfield and Kelly Ann Redfield 1 appeal from a June 1,
2022 Chancery Division order of ejectment from their rental home and judgment
of possession, based on habitual arrears in monthly payments. We reverse
because the trial court's findings were not supported by substantial, credible
evidence in the record and remand for a plenary hearing.
We summarize the relevant facts from the limited record developed on the
return date for the summary ejectment action. By way of background, in 1941,
the Audubon Mutual Housing Corporation was formed to manage and operate a
housing project, funded by the Federal Works Administration, to provide
housing for families with members engaged in national defense activities. The
project was known as Audubon Park in Audubon, New Jersey. In 1954, plaintiff,
a not-for-profit corporation, acquired ownership by quitclaim deed from the
federal government and continued to manage and operate the Audubon Park
community.
Since 1974, Kelly Ann's father held a life estate in the family occupied
rental home in Audubon Park. Defendants moved into the home when Kelly
1
We refer to defendants by their first names to avoid any confusion caused by
their shared surname. No disrespect is intended.
A-3454-21
2
Ann's father became ill. Defendants assumed occupancy of the home when
Kelly's father passed away.
In December 2015, defendants entered a Mutual Home Ownership
Contract (Contract) with plaintiff.2 Pursuant to the Contract, defendants became
members in the corporation, possessing an inheritable life tenancy but did not
own the home. Under the terms of the Contract, defendants agreed to make
monthly operating and utility payments by the fifth day of each month.
Paragraph 13(a) of the Contract also stated that "[i]n the event of default by the
[defendants] of any payments required under this Contract[,] the [plaintiff] may
terminate the Contract upon written notice to the [defendants] in accord with
such procedures in effect at such time."
In May 2019, plaintiff filed an order to show cause (OSC) and verified
complaint for ejectment and possession of the home. After a hearing was
scheduled, defendants brought their payments current, and plaintiff dismissed
the complaint.
Defendants again fell behind in their payments and in October 2019,
plaintiff filed a second OSC and complaint for ejectment. On October 24, 2019,
2
The contract shows the parties entered the Contract in December 2015, but did
not sign the contract until February 2016.
A-3454-21
3
the court entered a consent order detailing a payment plan reached between the
parties. The consent order provided that "[u]pon default of [defendants] to
timely submit . . . payments outline[d] in the [c]onsent [o]rder, [p]laintiff shall
immediately recover from [d]efendants . . . the possession of the dwelling . . . ."
During the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants became delinquent for a
third time and were unable to comply with the terms of the repayment plan. In
September 2020, the parties entered a second payment plan to bring their
payments current. The payment plan contained a provision which stated: "If
the above terms are defaulted on[,] this agreement will be immediately
terminated[,] and the account will be forwarded to the attorney for collection.
All attorney fees and late fees will be the responsibility of the contract holder
and added to the account." The payment plan also included a handwritten
provision, initialed by both defendants, which stated: "If agreement is not
adhered to[,] resident[s] agree[] to vacate [the home] in [thirty] days."
In January 2022, plaintiff filed a third OSC and verified complaint for
ejectment and declaratory judgment. In the complaint, plaintiff asserted
defendants were in arrears in the amount of $7,417.30 and that the Contract was
terminated based on defendants' failure to make timely monthly payments.
A-3454-21
4
Thereafter, the court entered an order and scheduled a hearing for
February 28, 2022. The order also required defendants to file and serve a written
answer by February 18. In compliance with the order, on February 4, 2022,
plaintiff served defendants with the verified complaint, the OSC, and the order
establishing the filing deadline for defendants' answer as February 18. In a letter
dated February 3, 2022, plaintiff's counsel also notified defendants that he would
be out on leave during the February 28 hearing date, had requested an
adjournment, and would notify defendants of the new hearing date if his request
was granted. Defendants failed to file an answer to the complaint, and thus, did
not comply with the court's order.
On March 9, 2022, the court granted plaintiff's request for an ejectment
judgment from the home. Plaintiff thereafter requested and was granted a writ
of possession on March 21, 2022. A Camden County sheriff officer then served
defendants with the judgment for possession and writ of possession. On March
28, 2022, defendants voluntarily vacated the home.
In May 2022, Erik moved to vacate the judgement for possession. 3 He
certified that settlement efforts with the plaintiff were futile. He also certified
3
The application was not included with defendants' Appendix; only defendant
Erik Redfield's and his attorney's certifications are included.
A-3454-21
5
that he was "unaware that [he] had to contact the court before February 18,
2022." He explained that he had contacted the court and was advised that
plaintiff's counsel was on vacation. Plaintiff's counsel contacted Erik when he
returned from vacation and told Erik that "[plaintiff] was not willing to work
with [him.]" Erik then contacted the court and was informed the matter would
be heard on plaintiff's submission because he missed the February 18 deadline.
On May 19, 2022, the judge entered an OSC why the judgment for possession
should not be vacated and scheduled a hearing for May 25.
At the OSC hearing, both parties were represented by counsel. Relying
on Rule 4:50-1, defendants argued they were entitled to relief from the judgment
of possession because (1) they were deprived of the required thirty-five days to
file an answer; (2) plaintiff's complaint was improperly brought as a summary
proceeding; and (3) plaintiff did not properly notify defendants that the Contract
was terminated. In opposition, plaintiff argued that defendants were not entitled
to thirty-five days to file an answer because the court set a filing deadline of
February 18 in the OSC order, and the September 3, 2020 payment plan
constituted written notice of termination of the Contract.
Following oral argument on June 1, 2022, the court entered an order
denying defendants' motion to vacate the judgment for possession. In an oral
A-3454-21
6
decision, the court stated that the lack of notice as a concern. However, the
court reasoned that the provision in the September 3, 2020 repayment plan
"constitute[d] the notice that if there was a failure to pay that [defendants] would
be vacating [the home] and that the agreement [was] terminated." The court
found plaintiff's application enforced the Contract, which defendant did not
oppose and vacated the home. The court concluded it would be inequitable to
vacate the judgment and place defendants back in the home when plaintiff has
secured another tenant and renovated the home.
Defendants present three arguments for our consideration. First, the
judgment of possession was void based on plaintiff's failure to terminate the
Contract. Second, the court erred in conducting a summary proceeding absent
"legal justification." Lastly, the court erred in allowing the misuse of an OSC.
"A trial court's interpretations of the law and the legal consequences that
flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference,"
Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995),
and its interpretation of court rules is also subject to de novo review, Myron
Corp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Corp., 407 N.J. Super. 302, 309, aff'd o.b., 203 N.J. 537(2010). We therefore review de novo the trial court's order.
A-3454-21
7
A summary action for ejectment is a limited action brought by a party
"claiming the right of possession of real property in the possession of another,
or [a party] claiming title to such real property." N.J.S.A. 2A:35-1; R. 6:1-
2(a)(4) (authorizing summary actions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:35-1 to - 3,
"where the defendant has no colorable claim of title or possession"); see J & M
Land Co. v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 166 N.J. 493, 520 (2001). To prevail, the
party seeking possession must demonstrate ownership of, or control over, the
property and that the person facing ejectment has no right to remain at the
property. Phoenix Pinelands Corp. v. Davidoff, 467 N.J. Super. 532, 615 (App.
Div. 2021).
In this case, the court's decision was based on insufficient proofs and
mistaken legal reasoning. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate defendants' life
tenancy terminated under the terms of the contract. See Phoenix Pinelands, 467
N.J. Super. at 615. Although the court referred to the second repayment plan
and found that constituted notice to defendants, there was no competent
evidence that defendants were provided written notice of the contract
termination in accordance with the Contract or plaintiff's bylaws. On this
record, we therefore cannot conclude plaintiff complied with its obligation to
serve the requisite notices prior to filing the ejectment action. Nor is there any
A-3454-21
8
competent evidence concerning whether defendants gave up their equity in the
home, surrendered their membership in the corporation, or their option to sell or
transfer the contract. We therefore reverse and vacate the order of ejectment
and writ of possession so that all the facts can be fully developed.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3454-21
9