Skip to main content



Service Refrigerated Transport v. Williams Development, Inc.

A-0892-07T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2008) (Unpublished)

LEASES; SECURITY DEPOSITS — Where documentation by a landlord clearly demonstrates that the landlord’s lease damages exceed the amount of the tenant’s original security deposit, no hearing is required and the tenant is not entitled to return of its security deposit.

A tenant leased office space and refrigerated warehouse space for a ten-year term. Less than two years later, the tenant vacated the premises. Its landlord secured a new tenant for the premises, but the new tenant abandoned the property as well. When the landlord was unable to attract further new tenants, it undertook extensive renovations to convert the refrigerated warehouse space to non-refrigerated space. Eventually, the landlord subdivided the warehouse space and leased it to other tenants. Several years after it abandoned the premises, the original tenant sued the landlord for the return of its security deposit. The landlord filed a counterclaim for the damages allegedly caused by the original tenant’s breach of the lease. The landlord and original tenant settled their dispute. The settlement agreement required the landlord to return the security deposit in three annual installments except that it was not obligated to return it all if, after the premises were fully rented, the drop in net income received from new tenants and the landlord’s costs incurred in order to re-let the premises exceeded the security deposit. The settlement agreement permitted the landlord to reinstate its counterclaim if its lease damages exceeded the amount of the security deposit. The settlement agreement also required the landlord to submit copies of all documentation supporting any claim that it was entitled to an offset against its obligation to return the deposit based on the costs incurred or lost rent.

Almost six years later, the original tenant again demanded return of its security deposit. The landlord responded that the construction costs incurred in order to re-let the space, as well as the lost rent, wiped out any claim the original tenant may have had for a refund. The parties were unable to resolve their dispute. So, the original tenant filed a motion to enforce the settlement and demanded the return of its security deposit. The landlord filed a cross-motion to allow the reinstatement of its counterclaim for damages. The landlord submitted documentation of its costs, which was only a partial list based on the documentation assembled to date. It showed that the landlord was entitled to approximately $460,000 from the original tenant. The lower court rejected the original tenant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The lower court found that the original tenant was not entitled to relief because it waited too long to enforce the agreement and because the documentation provided by the landlord demonstrated that the landlord’s offset exceeded the security deposit. The lower court also denied the original tenant’s request for a hearing.

The tenant appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate Division. The Court noted that an appellate court will not interfere with a lower court’s exercise of its discretion unless there is a clear error of judgment. It also noted that courts are free to exercise discretion in denying hearings on settlement agreements in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of proofs and arguments. It noted that hearings are only required when a party can demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact based on the affidavits and documentation provided. Here, the Court found that the documentation submitted by the landlord clearly demonstrated that the landlord’s lease damages exceeded the amount of the original tenant’s security deposit. The Court concluded that no hearing was required and that the original tenant was not entitled to the return of its security deposit.


MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com