Does a counter claim stop an eviction for non payment of rent?

Question

In NJ (and most other states), when a landlord attempts to evict a tenant due to non payment of rent, the tenant can raise the defense that the landlord did not properly upkeep the premises and use this to offset from the amount of rent owed.

Can the tenant also raise a defense that the landlord owes the tenant money for some other reason? For example, the tenant mistakenly overpaid for certain months or that the tenant paid multiple security deposits? What if the landlord owes the tenant money for an entirely different reason that isn't directly related to their LT relationship (such as a overdue loan payment etc.)? For the purpose of this question, assume the landlord does not dispute the tenants underlying claim. His only argument is that the tenant should counter-sue and that it should not be raised as a defense for non payment / stop the eviction.

This question is different than the question asked here, because that question doesn't specifically ask whether it would stop an eviction. It merely ask whether it is classified as a counterclaim or not. In this question, I am specifically asking whether a claim such as the above is sufficient to stop an eviction for non payment of rent.

Answer 1

Often, evictions are bifurcated. An initial hearing determines all evidence necessary to determine if there is a default existing sufficient to justify an eviction, and if so, the eviction goes forward immediately despite the fact that not all issues in the case have been resolved. A later hearing resolved the precise dollar amount of any damages claim.

If the grounds for eviction is non-payment of rent, and the amount of payments or the amount of obligations of the landlord that can be setoff against the rent due exceeds the amount of rent found to have not be paid, then it is a defense to an eviction in the initial possession phase. If the counterclaim is smaller than the amount of rent owed (or cannot for some reason be set off against the amount owed) then it is only at most, a setoff against a damages award in favor of the landlord.

I'm have not researched, in particular, how this is handled in New Jersey, but I am providing this answer on the theory that some insight is better than nothing.

For the purpose of this question assume the landlord does not dispute the tenants underlying claim. His only argument is that the tenant should counter sue and that it should not be raised as a defense for non payment / stop the eviction.

If this is true, it is both an affirmative defense to the eviction claim and a basis for a counterclaim in most cases. The better practice would be to raise it both ways in the same lawsuit.

But, if the counterclaim is not sufficient to overcome the claim that rent is owed and not paid in full, or triggers some other different alternative ground for an eviction (e.g., maybe the lease provides that application of a security deposit against rent owed is itself an event of default), then that wouldn't prevent an eviction.