NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0223-20
GRACE C. AMAECHI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROSE KAUME,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent.
PETER IHEZUE,
Third-Party Defendant. ________________________
Submitted October 19, 2021 – Decided February 18, 2022
Before Judges Fisher and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. DC-005043-19.
Grace C. Amaechi, appellant pro se.
Green & Green, attorneys for defendant/third-party plaintiff-respondent (Terry P. Green, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In this landlord-tenant matter, plaintiff Grace C. Amaechi appeals from
the September 2, 2020 judgment of the Special Civil Part denying the return of
her security deposit and awarding defendant Rose Kaume $11,250 for the cost
of repairing damages caused by Amaechi at the rented property. We affirm.
I.
In August 2018, Amaechi rented a house from Kaume. Nine months later,
Kaume discovered Amaechi had made an unauthorized alteration to the home
by constructing a partition in the family room from dry wall to create an
additional "bedroom." This alteration significantly damaged the ceiling, floors,
and walls.
Kaume filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part seeking Amaechi's
eviction. Pursuant to a consent to enter judgment for possession, Amaechi
vacated the home on October 29, 2019.
Once Kaume gained access to the residence, she discovered Amaechi had
caused additional damage, including a hole in the ceiling, burns in the
backsplash behind the stove, scratches, discoloration and damage to the floors,
a broken and overflowing toilet, a punched hole in the wall, and sewage-soaked
carpeting. In addition, debris, including a toilet and construction materials, was
A-0223-20 2 scattered in the yard and a large dumpster filled with garbage was parked in the
driveway. Kaume informed Amaechi that she was retaining her security deposit
of $3,750 to pay for repairing the damages.
Amaechi filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part seeking return of her
security deposit and reimbursement of $8,444.48 in expenses she alleges she
incurred repairing damage to the home from a leak in a toilet. Kaume filed a
counterclaim for $15,000 to repair damages she alleged Amaechi caused to the
property.1
Because of precautions implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic,
the two-day trial of this matter took place over Zoom. Amaechi, Kaume, and
the realtor who acted as Kaume's agent when leasing the home testified. The
parties introduced numerous exhibits and had the opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses. The court admitted several photographs of the home. Some depicted
the home in good condition just prior to the start of the lease; others captured
damage to the ceiling, floors, toilets, kitchen, and other areas of the house, as
well as the debris littering the yard and the loaded dumpster in the driveway.
1 Although Kaume sought more than $15,000, the jurisdictional limit of the Special Civil Part is $15,000 in damages. R. 6:1-2(a)(1). A-0223-20 3 In an oral opinion, the trial court found that Amaechi did not prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that she paid for necessary repairs to the house
during her tenancy for which she was not reimbursed. The court found that t o
the extent Amaechi established she had paid for repair services, she was
compensated for those expenses when she engaged in self-help by reducing her
rent in subsequent months.
With respect to Kaume's counterclaim, the court found credible the
testimony of the realtor, corroborated by photographs, that the home was in
"pristine condition" when it was rented to Amaechi. In addition, the court found
credible testimony and photographic evidence that the home suffered substantial
damage during Amaechi's tenancy and that Amaechi caused the damages. The
court found that Amaechi allowed ten people to live in the home, even though
the lease contemplated only Amaechi and her children as tenants. The court also
accepted the veracity of the invoices submitted by Kaume establishing "to the
penny" the costs she incurred repairing the damage that arose during the tenancy.
The court awarded Kaume $15,000 for the cost of repairs and denied
Amaechi's request for the return of her security deposit, which the court used to
offset the damage award. The September 2, 2020 judgment awards Kaume a net
$11,250, as well as court costs.
A-0223-20 4 This appeal follows. Amaechi argues she was denied due process because
of "the poor virtual connection through Zoom" during the trial and because she
was not advised on how to present evidence. In addition, she argues that the
court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by the evidence
and that the court failed to investigate potential fraud in the invoices submitted
by Kaume.
II.
"The United States Supreme Court has recognized the due process
guarantee expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution includes 'the requirement of "fundamental fairness"' in a legal
proceeding." In re Adoption of Child ex rel. M.E.B., 444 N.J. Super. 83, 88
(App. Div. 2016). While the New Jersey Constitution "does not expressly refer
to the right to due process of law," the Supreme Court "has engrafted these
protections upon Article I, Paragraph 1 of the State Constitution, concluding it
also 'protect[s] against injustice and, to that extent, protect[s] values like those
encompassed by the principle[s] of due process.'" Ibid.
The right to due process entitles a civil litigant to, inter alia, a fair hearing.
Ibid. "Fundamentally, due process requires [notice and] an opportunity to be
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Doe v. Poritz, 142
A-0223-20 5 N.J. 1, 106 (1995). "Additionally, due process protections encompass
'procedural safeguards including the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses
and the right to call witnesses.'" M.E.B., 444 N.J. Super. at 88-9. Ultimately,
due process is a flexible concept that depends upon the particular facts and
circumstances of the case. Doe, 142 N.J. at 106.
Having carefully reviewed the transcript of the trial, as well as the
evidence admitted by the court, we find no support for Amaechi's claim to have
been denied due process. Amaechi testified, submitted evidence, cross-
examined witnesses, and addressed the court without evident difficulty. We see
nothing in the record indicating that Amaechi's ability to establish her claims
and defend against Kaume's counterclaim was frustrated by the technology
through which the trial was held. At no point in the proceedings did Amaechi
object to the trial being held by Zoom, or inform the court that she was unable
to hear testimony, submit evidence, or otherwise meaningfully participate in the
trial.
Amaechi's arguments are, in part, based on her mischaracterization of
dashes that appear in the trial transcript.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-0223-20
GRACE C. AMAECHI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROSE KAUME,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent.
PETER IHEZUE,
Third-Party Defendant. ________________________
Submitted October 19, 2021 – Decided February 18, 2022
Before Judges Fisher and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. DC-005043-19.
Grace C. Amaechi, appellant pro se.
Green & Green, attorneys for defendant/third-party plaintiff-respondent (Terry P. Green, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In this landlord-tenant matter, plaintiff Grace C. Amaechi appeals from
the September 2, 2020 judgment of the Special Civil Part denying the return of
her security deposit and awarding defendant Rose Kaume $11,250 for the cost
of repairing damages caused by Amaechi at the rented property. We affirm.
I.
In August 2018, Amaechi rented a house from Kaume. Nine months later,
Kaume discovered Amaechi had made an unauthorized alteration to the home
by constructing a partition in the family room from dry wall to create an
additional "bedroom." This alteration significantly damaged the ceiling, floors,
and walls.
Kaume filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part seeking Amaechi's
eviction. Pursuant to a consent to enter judgment for possession, Amaechi
vacated the home on October 29, 2019.
Once Kaume gained access to the residence, she discovered Amaechi had
caused additional damage, including a hole in the ceiling, burns in the
backsplash behind the stove, scratches, discoloration and damage to the floors,
a broken and overflowing toilet, a punched hole in the wall, and sewage-soaked
carpeting. In addition, debris, including a toilet and construction materials, was
A-0223-20 2 scattered in the yard and a large dumpster filled with garbage was parked in the
driveway. Kaume informed Amaechi that she was retaining her security deposit
of $3,750 to pay for repairing the damages.
Amaechi filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part seeking return of her
security deposit and reimbursement of $8,444.48 in expenses she alleges she
incurred repairing damage to the home from a leak in a toilet. Kaume filed a
counterclaim for $15,000 to repair damages she alleged Amaechi caused to the
property.1
Because of precautions implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic,
the two-day trial of this matter took place over Zoom. Amaechi, Kaume, and
the realtor who acted as Kaume's agent when leasing the home testified. The
parties introduced numerous exhibits and had the opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses. The court admitted several photographs of the home. Some depicted
the home in good condition just prior to the start of the lease; others captured
damage to the ceiling, floors, toilets, kitchen, and other areas of the house, as
well as the debris littering the yard and the loaded dumpster in the driveway.
1 Although Kaume sought more than $15,000, the jurisdictional limit of the Special Civil Part is $15,000 in damages. R. 6:1-2(a)(1). A-0223-20 3 In an oral opinion, the trial court found that Amaechi did not prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that she paid for necessary repairs to the house
during her tenancy for which she was not reimbursed. The court found that t o
the extent Amaechi established she had paid for repair services, she was
compensated for those expenses when she engaged in self-help by reducing her
rent in subsequent months.
With respect to Kaume's counterclaim, the court found credible the
testimony of the realtor, corroborated by photographs, that the home was in
"pristine condition" when it was rented to Amaechi. In addition, the court found
credible testimony and photographic evidence that the home suffered substantial
damage during Amaechi's tenancy and that Amaechi caused the damages. The
court found that Amaechi allowed ten people to live in the home, even though
the lease contemplated only Amaechi and her children as tenants. The court also
accepted the veracity of the invoices submitted by Kaume establishing "to the
penny" the costs she incurred repairing the damage that arose during the tenancy.
The court awarded Kaume $15,000 for the cost of repairs and denied
Amaechi's request for the return of her security deposit, which the court used to
offset the damage award. The September 2, 2020 judgment awards Kaume a net
$11,250, as well as court costs.
A-0223-20 4 This appeal follows. Amaechi argues she was denied due process because
of "the poor virtual connection through Zoom" during the trial and because she
was not advised on how to present evidence. In addition, she argues that the
court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by the evidence
and that the court failed to investigate potential fraud in the invoices submitted
by Kaume.
II.
"The United States Supreme Court has recognized the due process
guarantee expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution includes 'the requirement of "fundamental fairness"' in a legal
proceeding." In re Adoption of Child ex rel. M.E.B., 444 N.J. Super. 83, 88
(App. Div. 2016). While the New Jersey Constitution "does not expressly refer
to the right to due process of law," the Supreme Court "has engrafted these
protections upon Article I, Paragraph 1 of the State Constitution, concluding it
also 'protect[s] against injustice and, to that extent, protect[s] values like those
encompassed by the principle[s] of due process.'" Ibid.
The right to due process entitles a civil litigant to, inter alia, a fair hearing.
Ibid. "Fundamentally, due process requires [notice and] an opportunity to be
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Doe v. Poritz, 142
A-0223-20 5 N.J. 1, 106 (1995). "Additionally, due process protections encompass
'procedural safeguards including the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses
and the right to call witnesses.'" M.E.B., 444 N.J. Super. at 88-9. Ultimately,
due process is a flexible concept that depends upon the particular facts and
circumstances of the case. Doe, 142 N.J. at 106.
Having carefully reviewed the transcript of the trial, as well as the
evidence admitted by the court, we find no support for Amaechi's claim to have
been denied due process. Amaechi testified, submitted evidence, cross-
examined witnesses, and addressed the court without evident difficulty. We see
nothing in the record indicating that Amaechi's ability to establish her claims
and defend against Kaume's counterclaim was frustrated by the technology
through which the trial was held. At no point in the proceedings did Amaechi
object to the trial being held by Zoom, or inform the court that she was unable
to hear testimony, submit evidence, or otherwise meaningfully participate in the
trial.
Amaechi's arguments are, in part, based on her mischaracterization of
dashes that appear in the trial transcript. It is evident that the dashes do not
represent omitted testimony, but instances of witnesses or the court talking over
A-0223-20 6 one another or changing the direction of their thoughts mid-sentence.2 Nor do
we agree with Amaechi's claim that the transcript is littered with "indiscernible"
notations that render it invaluable as a record of the proceeding.
With respect to the trial court's substantive decision, our scope of review
of the judge's findings in this nonjury trial is limited. We must defer to the
judge's factual determinations, so long as they are supported by substantial
credible evidence in the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of
Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). This court's "[a]ppellate review does not
consist of weighing evidence anew and making independent factual findings;
rather, [this court's] function is to determine whether there is adequate evidence
to support the judgment rendered at trial." Cannuscio v. Claridge Hotel &
Casino, 319 N.J. Super. 342, 347 (App. Div. 1999). However, "[a] trial court's
interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established
facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp.
Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
2 Kaume included in her appendix a letter from the court transcriber explaining the use of dashes in the transcript. Because Kaume did not move to supplement the record, we do not consider the letter. Our interpretation of the transcript is based on our experience reviewing trial transcripts. A-0223-20 7 The record fully supports the trial court's findings of fact, which were
based on its credibility determinations and review of the evidence. There is
ample support for the trial court's conclusion that Amaechi significantly
damaged the house during her tenancy and that Kaume incurred $15,000 in costs
to repair the damages. The trial court appropriately applied Amaechi's security
deposit to offset Kaume's costs. See N.J.S.A. 46:8-21.1.
Affirmed.
A-0223-20 8