OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF XXX LAW DIVISION

SPECIAL CIVIL PART, UNION COUNTY

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

NOW COME Linda Harris, the Defendant herein, and hereby file this Response to the Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows;

The Plaintiff reiterates that New Jersey Court Rule 4:501provides:

“ On motion, with briefs, and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party’s legal representative from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (b) newly discovered evidence which would probably alter the judgment or order and which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial…”

1. Accordingly, the Defendant pleads with this court that it would only be fair and just for the court to set aside the Judgment for Possession After Trial issued on April 5, 2023 on the grounds of new evidence that was not initially discovered during the trial. Precisely, the Defendant who is pro se (self-represent) and also is legally physically and mentally disabled as outlined by Social Security Administration and not represented by a lawyer and was very confused with the conversation she just had with the Plainfield Housing Attorney minutes to the actually trial. The Defendant also states that other activities that took place with the Plaintiff’s Attorney and with the Plainfield Housing Attorney and the information that was told to the Defendant was very upsetting and though the Defendant was not allowed to present her evidence before this Court.
2. The Defendant avers that the said decision has affected her greatly. It has become difficult for the Defendant to find an apartment because this ruling will stay on her record for 7 years because of this unfair eviction that was not the fault of the Defendant.
3. Moreover, there exists the possibility of the Defendant losing her Section 8 because of illegal activity that took place in this matter. The Defendant also pending lawsuit against the Plainfield Housing Authority in this matter because of right were violated and that the Defendant apartment was never inspected prior to the Defendant moving into the apartment on October 1, 2020. When the Defendant moved into the apartment the apartment was not in habitable condition.
4. Furthermore, the Defendant was not allowed to present key evidence during trial because she did not understand she needed to present her evidence in Court all of the Defendant evidence was uploaded to the Court on January 6, 20XX, February 6, 20XX and April 3, 20XX The Defendant presented the Court with a hard copy as well. Also the Court never ruled on the Defendant’s Motions that was presented to the Court. The Defendant also reiterates that the Plaintiff never received Housing Authority of Plainfield, Contract and Lease Amendment Contract from HAP Contract that was issued, and Lease Agreement was never changed to $2,000.00 per month and the Court made its decision without looking at the Defendant evidence which was uploaded to the Court prior to the hearing under the Harris Announcement the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive because the fees were never approved by the Plainfield Housing Authority.
5. This Court should also take note that this Court issued on April 5, 20XX was not The Defendant who is currently under a care of a psychiatrist took prescription drugs before the trial that were prescribed by her psychiatrist and the Defendant was not in her right “mind” mentally during the and did not understand her tenant legal rights during the trial. Moreover, the Defendant was recently serve medical conditions is now and the risk of her being rendered homeless is high hence this court should render a fair and just decision. All evidence in this matter was uploaded to the eCourt on January 5, 20XX, including exhibits in this matter.
6. The Defendant also reiterates that the property in question is fraudulent hence the Plaintiff’s requirement of payment of rent cannot be satisfied unless the title to the property is confirmed and the court should so order. The Plaintiff’s realtor was found in violation of Article(s) 2 of the Code of Ethics by the New Jersey Metro Centre Association of Realtors Decision of Ethics Hearing Panel of Professional Standards Committee on August 19, 20XX. The Defendant also settled with the Plaintiff’s realtor as indicated in the Revised Defendant Answer Complaint Landlord/Tenant With Grounds of Defense and Counterclaim on January 13, All evidence was uploaded to the Court.
7. Precisely, the defendant asserts that Abi Eduardo is not the landlord or the owner of the property, and no documents were sent from him to complete on the plaintiff’s behalf. The defendant was not able to present numerous text messages and emails or was not allow to speak to the Plaintiff directly of her outstanding concerns to the Plaintiff’s husband requesting to speak directly to the Plaintiff and other concern when the Defendant moved into the apartment.
8. As of today, this Court has not rendered any decisions on the Defendant’s motions that was filed.
9. Prior to the Defendant moving into this apartment; the apartment was not inspected and notified all parties immediately including the Plaintiff’s realtor, Plainfield Housing Authority Director, Plainfield Housing Inspector, Bridgeway Rehabilitation Services and the Landlord’s husband in regards to the condition of the apartment. The Defendant sent email to the Plainfield Housing Authority to cancel the contract immediately with the Landlord; however, the Plainfield Housing Authority failed to take action in this matter after the Defendant signed the lease. Prior to the signing of the lease the Defendant was not made aware that the Plaintiff’s husband was going to act as her agent for the property. For two and half years the Defendant has requested inspection from the Plainfield Housing Authority and the Plainfield Housing Authority ignore all letters in communications from the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that her apartment was supposed to be inspected prior to the Defendant moving in. The Defendant was not able to present key emails that was sent to the Director of Housing on October 7, 2020 in regard to the condition of the apartment and the Plainfield Housing Authority Inspector, Barry Person on October 13, 20xx.
10. Additionally, to counter the Plaintiff’s contention that the property in question is not fraudulent, the Defendant reiterates that the rental property in this matter is involved in a pending lawsuit against the HAP which participates in a covered housing program or the rural housing voucher program as set forth in the xxx. Such programs include, but are not limited to: The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, Section 8 project-based housing, and Section 811 housing for people with disabilities.
11. Also, during the signing of the lease no one told the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s husband was going to be the agent there is no email on file. In fact, Century 21 never received signed authorization for them to even list the property or to have the Plaintiff’s husband act as the Plaintiff’s agent. It would thus be a he surprise if Century 21 didn’t have permission to have the Plaintiff’s husband act as the Plaintiff agent on October 1, 20XX or the Plainfield Housing Authority what theory does this court think it’s okay that on October 1, 2020 that it is okay that the Defendant did not know that the Plaintiff was not going to be available during the commission of the lease or the walkthrough. On April 5, 20XX, during trial this was fact was made know that the Plaintiff’s husband was her agent. Prior to this the Plaintiff failed to send a letter stating that the Plaintiff’s husband was going to act as her agent.
12. Also, the Defendant sees to reply on XXX where the court stated thus:

A landlord should, in residential letting, be held to an implied covenant against latent defects, which is another manner of saying, habitability and livability fitness. It is a mere matter of semantics whether the court designates this covenant one “to repair” or “of habitability and livability fitness.” Actually it is a covenant that at the inception of the lease, there are no latent defects in facilities vital to the use of the premises for residential purposes because of faulty original construction or deterioration from age or normal usage. And further it is a covenant that these facilities will remain in usable condition during the entire term of the lease. In performance of this covenant, the landlord is required to maintain those facilities in a condition which renders the property liable. 

The Defendant put in writing and in text messages that items in her apartment doesn’t work immediately when the Defendant walked into the apartment and gave the landlord plenty of opportunity to fix all the conditions in the apartment. The landlord refused to make the needed repairs or contacted the Defendant’s attorney. The Defendant followed the two steps you must take when withhold rent and all steps were taken legally. The Defendant evidence was uploaded to the eCourt and the Defendant was not allowed to present her evidence during trial. The reason the rent was held was because of the bad conditions that the Defendant walked into on October 1, 20XX. use of repair and deduct as stated XXX.

13. Also, the Defendant seeks to rely on XXX  where the court stated thus:

“[i]t would create a rather anomalous situation if a judgment were to be vacated on the ground of mistake, accident, surprise or excusable neglect, only to discover later that the defendant had no meritorious defense. The time of the courts, counsel and litigants should not be taken up by such a futile proceeding.” 

14. Accordingly, the Defendant contends that she has a meritorious defense and should thus be afforded a chance to present her case. The Defendant is confident that she will prove that the verdict was unjust, oppressive and inequitable.

CONCLUSION

REASONS WHEREFORE, ALL PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant, in all fairness and justice, and in light of the preceding submission herein thus pleads with this court to grant the following prayers:

1. To vacate the dismissal
2. To reinstate the complaint

• To afford the Defendant an opportunity to fairly present her case with the said new evidence with new attTo set aside the judgment issued on the 5^th of April, XXX
• To grant the prayers sought in this motion.

DATED: 19, May, XXX

Respectfully submitted

______________________

XXX                                                                                                                                                 (Defendant)

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )