Says massive rent hike and new lease are not legal under state law
PETERSBURG — “What’s being done here is wrong and I am here to correct that,” Adam Bethke told a group of Osprey Cove homeowners May 7 during a standing-room-only meeting in the clubhouse.
Bethke, a managing attorney with nonprofit South Jersey Legal Services, told the crowd of more than 50 that the lot rent increase and some terms of a new lease set by the land owners are not legal under state law.
Five days later, residents showed up in force at a meeting with owner David Branton and his father, who were “kind of open to negotiating an increase but they wouldn’t do it then,” said Greg Hefron, who has taken the lead on the issue for homeowners.
“We had probably 90 people there and they didn’t care to do any negotiating with 90 people, plus our attorney wants to talk with their attorney before we go any further,” Hefron said. “We really got the point across.”
He said the owners told them they wanted a 30 percent increase to bring the lot rent up to the level of other comparable properties.
Hefron said state Sen. Michael Testa and Assemblymen Antwan McClellan and Erik Simonsen attended the meeting, where they discussed a measure making its way through the Legislature that would cap rent increases.
Later the same day, Hefron attended the Upper Township Committee meeting, where he asked about the possibility of a rent control ordinance.
Township solicitor John Amenhauser said the last administration decided against moving forward with one, noting Lower Township also has rejected doing so. He said only Middle Township locally has such an ordinance on the books.
During the initial meeting, Bethke said he would not be providing legal advice on an individual basis, instead talking generally about what steps can be taken to find a solution to the issue.
Residents of the 55+ community off Route 9 in the Seaville section of Upper Township are facing a rent increase of 30 percent to 40 percent. There are multiple types of units and differing rents, but one owner cited an increase from $725 to $925. In addition, owners were given just 30 days to sign the lease and start paying the greater amount.
Bethke said there are terms in the proposed lease that do not comport with state law and waive some of the owners’ rights. One term prevents owners from selling their properties.
“If you sign that lease and send it back to the property manager, you’ve now waived those rights and you are now contractually obligated to that rent increase and those new terms. Don’t sign the lease,” he said.
Bethke advised those present to pay the previous amount of rent rather than not paying at all, which could turn into grounds for eviction.
People questioned what they should do if they had their rent withdrawn straight from the bank. He said they should immediately stop that or advise their banks to approve only the previous amount.
The property was developed by Harry Vanderslice, who sold it in October 2024 to Branton.
Bethke said under state law, the litmus test for rent increases is whether they are “conscionable,” 5 percent to 10 percent, or “unconscionable,” anything in excess.
In the case of an unconscionable increase, the property owner must show grounds for the excessive fee hike such as capital improvements.
As of the meeting date, about 60 owners of the 110 manufactured homes in the complex had signed a retainer with SJLS for representation and others were signing up following the forum.
Bethke said SJLS would be representing each owner as an individual but presenting the issue to the owner as a group.
In New Jersey, leases are in perpetuity. That means after the initial period ends, if none of the material terms changes, it moves into a month-to-month lease and stays that way, Bethke said. Tenants are protected unless the owner has grounds under the Anti-Eviction Act to evict them, such as nonpayment, harassment and criminal conduct.
“I haven’t seen anything that says he has grounds to terminate anyone’s lease,” Bethke said.
He warned those who had signed retainer agreements that there were going to be ups and downs.
“There’s things you are going to be happy I can pull off and things that are going to upset you,” he said. “This is going to be a negotiation, and the reality of a negotiation is that no party walks away happy. They just walk away knowing that they got a fair deal, which means both sides got some of what they want and both sides got kicked in the teeth.”
Owners have faced rent increases steadily over the past five years of 2.5 percent, 3, percent, 4 percent, 3 percent and 12.5 percent. Bethke said the final increase was not legal but once the tenants signed the lease, it was too late.
“Your rights are it has to be conscionable and if you don’t assert them and you waive your rights, there is nothing I can do about retroactive rent increases,” he said.
Bethke told owners that things may be different under Branton’s ownership.
“Moving forward, you’re not going to get the same treatment; you’re just going to have to accept that,” he said.
The attorney advised the residents to play nice and not take their ire out on the property manager, who is just doing what he is being paid to do.
“Don’t beat the messenger,” Bethke said. “We want to be the good guys. We need to come from a position of power and right.”
He warned that there likely will be repercussions, such as slack maintenance and lawn care. The pool may not be opened for summer.
“This is not your investment; this is your home. This is your security. This is where you’re supposed to go home, walk in the door and leave the stress outside and relax. That is my goal is to give that back to you because right now I don’t think any of you have that,” Bethke said.
Complex resident Sue Steidl, one of the owners who spoke out on the issue before Township Committee on April 28, said she was pleased with what Bethke told them.
“I felt better as soon as we got in contact with South Jersey Legal Services, because it seemed like without going to a lawsuit they would give us guidance right off the bat,” she said. “The lease agreement says if we were to lose our case, we would have to pay the owner’s legal fees and that made everybody crazy, but as long as we are represented and don’t go to court, that clause doesn’t come into effect. Once that issue was somewhat aired out, it relieved our minds.”
– STORY and PHOTO by CRAIG D. SCHENCK/Sentinel staff
At top, Osprey Cove residents gather May 7 to listen to an attorney about the “unconscionable” rent hike the owner of the property is trying to impose.
