Hello. I am asking a question on behalf of a friend. Here is the info as I understand it:

- This person has had an annual lease in their apartment for years.
- There is a clause in the lease which says if the lease is not renewed, it converts to month-to-month.
- Rent has been paid on time every single time during this period.
- To the best of my knowledge, no violation of any terms of the lease have ever occurred and there have been no official complaints in writing of such.
- The landlord never offered a new lease to the tenant and just assumed it converted to month-to-month based on the previous clause.
- The landlord lives in the same building, and this is the only other apartment in the home.
- The landlord, basically a month or two after the lease converted has now informed the tenant that they will not be renewing the month-to-month, but given no reason thus far. They said they will receive a letter informing them of this.

What am I wondering is, first, is this legal? I was under the belief that in New Jersey, you have to offer renewal of the lease and it's not allowed to not do so unless there is specific cause? My impression is the intent of the law is to prevent the landlord from asking a tenant to leave just to get a new tenant that they like more or who pays a higher rent or whatever. Is it even legal that the lease converted to month-to-month without offering the tenant an annual lease? From the what I've seen, it sounds like the landlord is acting very shady as far as New Jersey laws and the only loophole is that they live in the same building.

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

NJ does have strict rules for terminating tenancy. That said, its not impossible for a landlord to do so.

New Jersey Termination of Lease Law - Lease - Landlord Tenant

The fact this is is an owner occupied building with only 1 other unit probably exempts the landlord from the restrictives rules of other tenancies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

NJ does have strict rules for terminating tenancy. That said, its not impossible for a landlord to do so.

New Jersey Termination of Lease Law - Lease - Landlord Tenant

The fact this is is an owner occupied building with only 1 other unit probably exempts the landlord from the restrictives rules of other tenancies.

---

Thank you. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is does this definitely hold? It seems strange that just because they live in the same dwelling, suddenly there's unlimited power to evict anyone at any time regardless of reason. It seems to go against everything else in the tenant policy, and I guess general advice is just never live in the same building as your landlord?

Also, I feel like the landlord baited my friend in reducing to month-to-month by not presenting a new lease to sign, just to then not renew the month-to-month. They gave every indication that this would not be an issue, then suddenly one day they decided they are not renewing the month-to-month for no given reason. That is pretty shady behavior and I feel like it should be actionable in some way.

Let me know if you have any other insight.

Its hardly shoddy behavior. They do own the property after all... Your friend can always buy their own property and find out what its like to be a Landlord.

And trust me... having the option to NOT renew the lease for certain tenants... is a godsend for the property owners. There are good tenants out there.. but they are outnumbered by the bad ones.

I've been on both sides of this..renter, AND a Landlord... the people that complain the most are usually the worst tenants to have. The really good ones a landlord never wants to see go and will go out of their way to keep them. Because they know a good one when they see them and know what bad ones are like. And I've seen more than a few really bad tenants.

I'd NEVER rent a property to anyone in an area with strict anti landlord laws....its enough of a PITA dealing with it in areas that don't.

Good or bad ..landlords do have to follow the law...and they can also do what the law allows them to do.

It is normal and common, and appears to be a misunderstanding of the renter.

If they wanted to renew, they also have a duty and responsibility to ask for a new lease to sign, If it was clear, that if not renewed, it converted to a month to month, then the written terms are very clear.

There is no law I am aware of that prevents a landlord from raising the rent when a lease expires, and it's more common than not that they do raise the rent. However before you make the landlord a shady character, call him to get clarity, or wait for the letter. LOL, he is probably wondering why you have not contacted him if you intended to stay. Seems neighbors of a few years would have communicated their concerns already. It looks just as shady for a tenant to NOT ask for a renewal of his lease in my book. As a landlord makes you wonder, but good business would dictate finding out.

Kind of sloppy on both sides if you ask me, but a phone call can end the speculations, and assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolaceNJ

Thank you. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is does this definitely hold? It seems strange that just because they live in the same dwelling, suddenly there's unlimited power to evict anyone at any time regardless of reason. It seems to go against everything else in the tenant policy, and I guess general advice is just never live in the same building as your landlord?

Also, I feel like the landlord baited my friend in reducing to month-to-month by not presenting a new lease to sign, just to then not renew the month-to-month. They gave every indication that this would not be an issue, then suddenly one day they decided they are not renewing the month-to-month for no given reason. That is pretty shady behavior and I feel like it should be actionable in some way.

Let me know if you have any other insight.

---

First, it is very common for tenancy laws to be different for owner occupied buildings with only 1 or a few units. The statute that I linked to specifically says that ("

other than (1) owner-occupied premises with not more than two rental units")

. So yes it does hold.

I would not argue that the landlord decided he did not want your friend as a tenant any longer so maneuvered him into going month to month so he could terminate the lease. However, it is perfectly legal and I doubt if it would be actionable. But if you are unsure check with a local real estate attorney.

Finally, I don't see anyone being "evicted" here. Eviction is a legal process whereby a tenant is legally (and forcibly) removed from their residence. Termination of tenancy is NOT an eviction. An eviction would only occur if your friend refuses to vacate. Landlords have rights too, remember that.

There are advantages and disadvantages of living in an owner occupied building with few units.

What I would suggest that your friend do is sit down with the landlord and find out why he's terminating the lease. See if there is something that can be worked out (increased rental etc.). If not, he might try to negotiate a contribution to moving costs. It will cost the landlord to file for an eviction order so he may want to kick in to help on that.

Hey. Thanks guys for the information, although it is certainly disappointing news. I have passed it along to my friend.