Redact minors' names in eviction filings

Summary#

A-5704, “Concerns listing name of minor child on residential lease agreements and related court documents,” would supplement Title 2A of New Jersey law; it does not amend a named existing Act. Its stated goal is to keep minors’ names out of eviction filings and public court records. The bill is introduced and is not law, so its passage is uncertain.

  • A landlord must redact a minor child’s name from court filings related to a residential lease if the child is named on the lease. A landlord must not name a minor child in an eviction complaint.
  • A court may not enter a judgment for possession if a party tells it that a minor child is named in the eviction complaint.
  • On a motion by an individual or a child’s parent or guardian, or on its own motion, a court must exclude from public access the court record in an eviction action where the child’s name appeared.
  • Tenants may not waive these rights. A waiver would be void; a tenant subjected to one may seek a court declaration that it is void and reasonable attorney’s fees.
  • A landlord who violates the bill would face civil penalties of $250, $500, then $1,000 for each affected child for the first, second, and later offenses.

What it means for you#

  • Landlords: You would have to leave a minor child’s name out of eviction complaints and redact it from related court filings when the child is named on the lease. The bill does not prohibit naming a child on the lease itself.
  • Tenants and parents or guardians: You could ask a court to keep a record containing a child’s name out of public access. A tenant could not give up the bill’s protections in a lease or other waiver.
  • Tenants facing eviction: If any party tells the court that the complaint names a minor child, the bill says no judgment for possession may be entered. It does not explain whether correcting the complaint would allow the case to proceed.
  • Courts and the public: Courts would have to restrict public access to covered records when a motion is made or the court acts on its own. The bill does not say that all records in every eviction case involving a child would be closed.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • Landlords could owe civil penalties, calculated separately for each affected child, and may face reasonable attorney’s fees if a tenant seeks a declaration that a waiver is invalid.
  • The bill does not estimate costs for landlord compliance or court work.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not explain what counts as “court filings related to” a lease, or how a landlord should correct a filing that already names a child.
  • It does not set out a process for resolving an eviction case after a party reports that the complaint names a child.
  • The bill’s statement says tenants may seek actual damages for an unlawful waiver, but the operative bill text provides for a declaratory judgment and reasonable attorney’s fees, not actual damages.
  • The statement describes broader protection for past records, but the bill text refers to the court record in which the child’s name appeared in an eviction action. The scope of records to be restricted is unclear.
  • The bill does not explain how “first,” “second,” or later offenses are counted. No publicly available information in the supplied materials establishes how current New Jersey law treats these issues.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to protect minors’ privacy by keeping their names out of eviction complaints and restricting public access to records that contain them.
  • A possible argument for the rule is that children are not the tenants being sued, so their names may not need to appear in a public eviction case.
  • Making the protections non-waivable could prevent a landlord from requiring tenants to give them up as a condition of renting.

Case against#

  • One concern is that a judgment for possession would be barred whenever a party reports a child’s name in the complaint, with no stated correction process or exception.
  • The bill does not clearly define which records must be restricted or how landlords and courts should handle filings already made.
  • The mismatch between the bill text and its statement leaves uncertainty about whether tenants could recover actual damages for an unlawful waiver.