Plaza Road Cooperative, Inc. v. Finn

201 N.J. Super. 174, 492 A.2d 1072 (1985)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Plaza Road Cooperative, Inc. v. Finn

New Jersey Superior Court
201 N.J. Super. 174, 492 A.2d 1072 (1985)

Facts

In 1979, Mae Finn (defendant) leased an apartment from Plaza Road, Inc., later Plaza Road Cooperative, Inc. (Plaza Road) (plaintiff). Plaza Road later converted Finn’s apartment building into a cooperative residential association. Finn entered into an owner-occupant agreement with Plaza Road that contained terms similar to those usually found in a landlord-tenant agreement, like the right to quiet possession, limits on who may occupy the apartment, and limits on the right to make alterations to the apartment. However, the agreement also contained provisions inconsistent with those of a landlord-tenant relationship, including a provision limiting Plaza Road’s liability for maintaining public areas and for providing services like heat and water that are required of landlords. Under the agreement, Finn also waived certain rights and defenses that are available to tenants as a matter of course. Further, Finn as owner-occupier was given complete control over the premises and had the right to inspect Plaza Road’s books. The agreement also provided that any action under the agreement for failure comply with the terms of the agreement, including the failure to pay rent, would be brought in the district court as a summary-dispossession action. The agreement stated that such a summary-dispossession action would be pursuant to a New Jersey statute that provided for summary-dispossession proceedings in the context of the landlord-tenant relationship. Further, Finn, as the owner-occupier of the apartment, agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the district court for such an action. Plaza Road later sought to pursue a summary-dispossession action against Finn in the district court. Plaza Road maintained that the court had jurisdiction to hear the summary-dispossession proceedings on the grounds that (1) the agreement between the parties conferred jurisdiction on the court and (2) the relationship between Finn and Plaza Road was a landlord-tenant relationship. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and Plaza Road appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 830,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership