Darren Pieper v. Zachary Colfer

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: February 14, 2024
• Docket: A-2978-21
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2978-21

DARREN PIEPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ZACHARY COLFER,

Defendant-Respondent. ________________________

Submitted February 6, 2024 – Decided February 14, 2024

Before Judges Whipple and Enright.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. LT-000062- 21.

Darren Pieper, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

In this one-sided appeal, pro se plaintiff Darren Pieper challenges a

September 29, 2021 order denying his request for an immediate trial in the landlord-tenant action he filed against defendant Zachary Colfer.1 Plaintiff also

appeals from a March 2, 2022 order dismissing his landlord-tenant matter with

prejudice. Because we cannot grant relief to plaintiff for property he admittedly

no longer owns, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

I.

We summarize the salient facts from our review of the motion record.

Plaintiff previously owned property located at 1064 County Road 523 in

Flemington (Property). In 2021, he filed an action to eject defendant and other

individuals from the Property. Plaintiff deemed defendant a "holdover room-

tenant" who remained on the Property based on a "verbal lease with [p]laintiff's

ex-wife."

After defendant purportedly "took over . . . [p]laintiff's entire house,"

"broke into . . . [p]laintiff's detached [three]-bay garage to . . . occupy it," and

"threatened to burn down the house," plaintiff filed an order to show cause,

asking the trial court to schedule "an immediate landlord[-]tenant trial based

upon 'emergent circumstances.'" On September 29, 2021, the trial court heard

argument on the application. During the hearing, defendant's attorney argued

1 Plaintiff's claims against two other defendants were dismissed without prejudice in November 2021, and those defendants are not involved in this appeal. A-2978-21 2 the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter because plaintiff failed to serve

a "notice to quit" and a "notice to cease" on defendant in conjunction with the

order to show cause. Plaintiff disputed the jurisdictional issue. Accordingly,

the judge stated he would "double check" defendant's position "before . . .

entering any kind of an order denying [plaintiff's] request for an immediate . . .

trial." Later that day, the judge denied the order to show cause.

In a cogent written opinion accompanying the September 29 order, the

judge found plaintiff failed to "establish[] any emergency circumstances that

would justify the immediate scheduling of a landlord-tenant trial." Further, the

judge concluded that "other than the nonpayment of rent claim, plaintiff ha[d]

not set forth any actionable basis for evicting a tenant under the anti -eviction

statute[.] N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1[ to -61.12]."2 However, the judge stated

plaintiff's "complaint seeking a judgment of possession [wa]s preserved, and the

matter w[ould] remain on the court's docket as an action for possession based

upon non-payment of rent." Additionally, the judge ordered the matter to "be

scheduled for disposition in the normal course."

2 The Anti-Eviction Act protects residential tenants from eviction unless the landlord demonstrates good cause for removal under one of the enumerated grounds, including a tenant's nonpayment of rent, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(a), and disorderly conduct, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(b). A-2978-21 3 The record reflects the Property was scheduled for a sheriff's sale in

December 2021, but the sale was delayed for approximately two months.

According to plaintiff, he "lost ownership of his property in February of 2022

because he was unable to obtain possession to be able to pay his mortgage."

Therefore, on March 2, 2022, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with

prejudice. In a brief statement of reasons accompanying the March 2 order, the

judge found "[p]laintiff [wa]s no longer the owner of the [P]roperty."

II.

On appeal, plaintiff argues:3 (1) "the [trial] court had jurisdiction, . . .

plaintiff notified . . . defendants, but the court erred in not recognizing the

multiple attempts"; (2) "the [trial] court erred in not noticing that . . . plaintiff

had multiple grounds to evict . . . defendants under the Anti-Eviction Act"; (3)

"the [trial] court erred in not noticing that . . . plaintiff served notice by his

lawsuit that was filed against . . . defendants [and] . . . in stating that both notices

[we]re required 'notice to quit' and 'notice to cease[,]' neither of which is a titled

document under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61"; and (4) "plaintiff was denied [the]

opportunity to show good cause."

3 We recite plaintiff's arguments verbatim, except where indicated. A-2978-21 4 For the first time on appeal, plaintiff also contends the trial "court erred

in not noticing . . . plaintiff filed an action to eject . . . defendants," and the

"eviction moratorium did not apply to ejectments." Further, he newly argues his

"foreclosure action should have . . . been just cause to eject . . . defendants."

"Generally, an appellate court will not consider issues, even constitutional

ones, which were not raised" before the trial court. State v. Galicia, 210 N.J.

364, 383 (2012); see also Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234

(1973). As our Supreme Court explained, "[a]ppellate review is not limitless.

The jurisdiction of appellate courts rightly is bounded by the proofs and

objections critically explored on the record before the trial court by the parties

themselves." State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 19 (2009).

Further, we typically "will not entertain cases when a controversy no

longer exists[,] and the disputed issues have become moot." De Vesa v. Dorsey,

134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993) (Pollock, J., concurring). "An issue is 'moot' when the

decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the

existing controversy." Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254,

257-58 (App. Div. 2006) (quoting N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. State

Dep't of Treasury, Div. of Tax'n, 6 N.J. Tax 575, 582 (Tax 1984), aff'd, 204 N.J.

Super. 630 (App. Div. 1985)). In short, we "do not resolve issues that have

A-2978-21 5 become moot due to the passage of time or intervening events." Wisniewski v.

Murphy, 454 N.J. Super. 508, 518 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting State v. Davila,

443 N.J. Super. 577, 584 (App. Div. 2016)). For example, "[o]rdinarily, where

a tenant no longer resides in [a] property, an appeal challenging the propriety of

an eviction is moot." Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J. Super. 246, 251 (App. Div.

2005) (citing Ctr. Ave. Realty, Inc. v. Smith, 264 N.J. Super. 344, 347 (App.

Div. 1993)); see also Daoud v. Mohammad, 402 N.J. Super. 57, 61 (App. Div.

2008).

Here, plaintiff expressly admits he "is only appealing as a matter of

semantics." He explains that once defendant "took illegal full possession" of

the Property, plaintiff could not pay his mortgage and "lost ownership of his

property in February of 2022." Plaintiff also acknowledges "[t]he new owners

who took over the [P]roperty have since evicted [defendant,] . . . which no longer

makes [defendant] a part of this action."

Under these circumstances, plaintiff's appeal is moot. Thus, we decline

to speculate whether he would have prevailed at trial or whether he would have

avoided the loss of his Property to a sheriff's sale had his landlord-tenant trial

been scheduled sooner.

Dismissed as moot.

A-2978-21 6