Summary#
S-4846, “Prohibits landlords from using certain living situations as cause for eviction of residential tenants,” is an introduced bill that would add a new provision to Title 2A of New Jersey law. Its stated aim is to prevent eviction when a tenant lets a housing-insecure family member live with them. It is not law; passage is uncertain.
- A landlord would be prohibited from treating that living arrangement as a violation of a referenced part of New Jersey’s 1974 eviction law or as any other cause to evict the tenant, the family member, or both.
- “Family member” includes a spouse or civil-union partner; adult or minor child; parent; sibling; aunt or uncle; niece or nephew; first cousin; grandparent or grandchild; father-, mother-, son- or daughter-in-law; stepparent, stepchild, stepbrother or stepsister; and half-brother or half-sister. The relationship may be by blood, marriage, civil union or adoption.
- A “housing insecure family member” is a family member whose removal may leave that person, the tenant, or both unable to obtain stable occupancy of decent, safe and affordable housing.
- The Commissioner of Community Affairs may adopt rules to implement the bill; the bill does not require the commissioner to do so.
What it means for you#
- Tenants: If you let a family member who meets the bill’s definition live in your leased home, the landlord could not use that living situation as a reason to evict you or the family member. The bill does not protect against eviction for unrelated reasons.
- Family members: The bill would restrict eviction based on this living arrangement, but does not set out a separate right to a tenancy or a general housing benefit.
- Landlords: You would have to follow this restriction. The bill does not spell out how to decide whether a family member meets the housing-insecurity definition.
- Current law: The supplied materials do not include the current text of the 1974 law cited in the bill, so its existing grounds for eviction and how this new rule would interact with them could not be verified.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The bill gives the Commissioner of Community Affairs authority to adopt rules, but does not require rules or specify funding, staffing or a cost estimate.
What is unclear#
- How a tenant or family member would show that the family member is “housing insecure,” and who would decide whether the definition is met.
- What evidence or process would apply if a landlord disputes that the definition is met.
- How the new protection would interact with the current eviction law; the current law was not supplied.
- Whether rules would be adopted and, if so, what they would cover.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to prevent a tenant from facing eviction for taking in a relative who may otherwise struggle to find decent, safe and affordable housing.
- A possible argument for the bill is that it could protect both the tenant and the relative from losing stable housing because of that living arrangement.
- The family definition covers a wide range of relatives, including relatives by adoption, marriage and civil union.
Case against#
- The bill does not explain how to determine whether a family member meets its broad housing-insecurity definition, which could lead to disputes.
- One concern is that landlords would be barred from using this living arrangement as an eviction cause without the bill setting out a process for resolving disagreements.
- It is unclear how the prohibition would fit with the existing eviction law, because that law’s text was not supplied.