Protects minors' names in eviction filings

Summary#

S-4840 would add rules to Title 2A of New Jersey law; it does not amend a named existing Act. Its stated goal is to protect minor children’s names in residential lease-related court filings. It was introduced and referred to committee, so it is not law and passage is uncertain.

  • A landlord would have to redact a child’s name from court filings related to a residential lease if the child is named on the lease. The bill does not ban naming a child on the lease itself.
  • A landlord could not name a minor child in an eviction complaint. If a party tells the court that a child was named in the complaint, no judgment for possession could be entered in that case.
  • On a motion by an individual or the child’s parent or guardian—or on its own motion—the court would have to remove from public access the court record in which the child’s name appeared in an eviction action.
  • Tenants could not waive these rights. A tenant subjected to a purported waiver could seek a court declaration that it is void and recover reasonable attorney’s fees.
  • Landlords who violate the rules would face civil penalties of $250 per affected child for a first offense, $500 for a second, and $1,000 for a third or later offense.

What it means for you#

  • Landlords: You would have to redact a named child’s name from covered court filings and keep the child’s name out of eviction complaints. The bill does not require removing the child’s name from the lease.
  • Tenants and parents or guardians: You could ask a court to keep the specified eviction record from public access. A tenant could not give up the bill’s protections through a lease or other waiver.
  • Tenants facing eviction: If a party tells the court that the complaint names a minor child, the court could not enter a judgment for possession in that case. The bill does not explain how the case could proceed afterward.
  • Courts: Courts would handle motions to restrict public access, could act on their own motion, and could hear summary proceedings to enforce the civil penalties.
  • General public: The bill would not automatically make every eviction record confidential. The access restriction applies to the court record in which the child’s name appeared, and requires a motion or action by the court.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the available material.

  • Landlords could face the stated civil penalties. The bill gives no estimate of how often penalties might be imposed or the revenue they might produce.
  • The bill requires court action and landlord compliance but provides no staffing or administrative cost estimate.
  • The bill allows reasonable attorney’s fees for a tenant subjected to an invalid waiver. The operative text does not provide for actual damages, although the bill’s statement says it does.

What is unclear#

  • The parent law, Title 2A, was not supplied, so the bill’s rules could not be checked against current New Jersey law.
  • The bill does not define “individual” for purposes of making a motion to restrict public access.
  • It does not explain what happens to an eviction case after a court is told that a child was named in the complaint and therefore cannot enter a judgment for possession.
  • It does not set out a process or timeline for redacting names, handling requests, or deciding whether a court record should be restricted.
  • It does not explain how officials would determine whether an offense is a landlord’s first, second, or later offense.
  • The bill’s statement refers to actual damages, but the operative text does not include that remedy.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce public exposure of children’s names in eviction-related court records.
  • Requiring landlords to redact names and barring them from including children in eviction complaints would set direct limits on disclosure.
  • Making the protections non-waivable could prevent a landlord from requiring tenants to give them up as a condition of renting.
  • Penalties give landlords a financial reason to follow the rules.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill bars a judgment for possession whenever a party reports that a child was named in the complaint, but does not say how the case can then move forward.
  • The bill does not clearly explain how courts should handle requests, identify records, or apply the escalating penalties.
  • Restricting only the record in which the child’s name appeared may leave other records in the eviction action publicly accessible.
  • The bill requires court and landlord action but provides no cost estimate or implementation details.