City moves to evict MTOTSA tenant
Court hearing set for June 22 in Judge Lawson's courtroom

by Christine Varno

A Long Branch resident will learn whether he can continue his four-decade-long tenancy on the oceanfront in state Superior Court next week after receiving an eviction order from the city. Bill Nordahl, who has rented an apartment in a Marine Terrace house for 41 years, is scheduled to appear before Judge Lawrence M. Lawson on June 22 on an "Order of Possession" he received from the city last week. "They are asking the judge to rule to evict me immediately," said Nordahl, 69, who has been fighting the condemnation of the home he lives in. "It is pretty scary," he said. "It is upsetting because they told me I could stay in my home. If they do this, I just don't know how to cope with this."

Nordahl has refused to sign a use and occupancy agreement with the city because he believes by doing so, he will relinquish his tenant's rights. Paul .V. Fernicola, the condemnation attorney representing the city, said the eviction action follows repeated requests by the city to sign the agreement. Nordahl is a renter in what has become known as the MTOTSA neighborhood, an acronym for the three-streets it comprises, Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue.

A group of some 20 MTOTSA homeowners are currently appealing a decision by Lawson that permits the condemnation of their neighborhood for a private,luxury redevelopment project. According to Nordahl, he was told by Fernicola, Red Bank, that he could remain a tenant of his home until the MTOTSA appeal was decided. "Yes, we told Mr. Nordahl he could remain in the property," Fernicola said in an interview last week. "But we asked him to sign a use and occupancy agreement. He would not sign it. We also tried to offer him relocation assistance. He denied it. We bent over backwards.

"We said to Judge Lawson that the only concession we ask for, and we put [the word] concession in quotes, is for Mr. Nordahl to sign the use and occupancy agreement." But Nordahl's attorney, Barbara Gonos of West Long Branch, said signing an agreement was never part of the deal. "When Mr. Fernicola told me Bill had to sign a use and occupancy agreement, I said no way, no how," Gonos said in an interview this week. "Word on the street is, they want to put in new higher paying tenants," she said adding, "They are clouding this with nonsense. It is all smoke. "Read the language from the court," she said. "There was no mention of a written agreement."

On March 2, Lawson denied a motion filed by Gonos to dismiss a condemnation complaint served upon Nordahl by the city. The motion further sought to prohibit the city from condemning the entire MTOTSA neighborhood. At the hearing, Fernicola said, "We have no intention ... that during the pendency of the appeal we would not seek to remove him from the property, that he could remain in the property. "And at that time that we implement this redevelopment project, and you have to vacate the property, we just want you to agree today that by the city allowing you to remain in the property during the pendency of the appeal, that cannot serve as some type of defense."

But Gonos said a written agreement was never put on record in court. In the city's order for possession, it is seeking immediate and exclusive possession of the property Nordahl occupies and to have Nordahl be immediately vacated from the premises. "The city has followed all the legalities," Fernicola said. "This is a situation where there is no legal justification to criticize the city; [Nordahl] has refused multiple requests. "We are asking for immediate possession, but the judge could say he has two weeks so he has time to find a place. If he physically won't move, then we will have to send the sheriff in," Fernicola said. The city acquired title to Nordahl's home in February after reaching a condemnation settlement with the owners of the property, according to Fernicola. At that time, the city sent Nordahl a letter concerning his continued occupancy at his Marine Terrace unit along with a use and occupancy agreement, Fernicola said. Nordahl was also advised of relocation assistance for replacement housing, if he chose to terminate his tenancy, according to Fernicola, who said the city offered him an oceanfront unit just blocks away from his current home on the oceanfront at Grauman Towers.

"He refused the [relocation] assistance and he refused to execute the [use and occupancy] agreement," Fernicola said. Again in May, the city sent a letter to Gonos advising that Nordahl sign the use and occupancy agreement. "The city made no threat of eviction nor did it set any deadline for [Nordahl] to vacate the property, even though it was legally entitled to take such action by virtue of the termination of [Nordahl's] tenancy," Fernicola wrote in the letter. "If Mr. Nordahl is not willing to acknowledge that the city's concession in allowing him to remain in the property does not create a landlord-tenant relationship between Mr. Nordahl and the city, then I will have no alternative but to obtain an Order for Possession requiring Mr. Nordahl to vacate the property at this time," the letter continued.

But Gonos said Fernicola's account is not accurate. "The first time that we heard anything about the agreement was in May," Gonos said. There is a whole heck of a lot more in the agreement than what was said in court. "There are six paragraphs [in the agreement]," she said. "Why didn't it just have those words from court in it. There is mention of security deposits and all that other stuff." Gonos additionally commented on the relocation efforts offered to Nordahl.

"I could not believe what I found out that is going on in Grauman Towers," Gonos said. She said she read articles in local newspapers citing that Grauman Towers has been "the victim of poor or no management" and that at one point the apartment complex was inspected for possible code violations and "all 79 [units] failed."

"This is the type of relocation assistance they are giving you," Gonos said. According to the use and occupancy agreement, Nordahl would be required to continue to pay his rent of $650 a month to the city and his continued tenancy would not create a landlord-tenant relationship between him and the city of Long Branch or its designated redevelopers. It also contains additional terms, including that Nordahl agrees to hold the owner harmless from all claims arising out of the continued occupancy and that Nordahl agrees not to make any demands on the city for repairs or maintenance to the property. "By allowing [Nordahl] to stay, it doesn't create a new tenant relationship with the city," Fernicola said in the interview. "When we think we will win the appeal, you can raise the defense that you created a new tenancy. "We just don't want [Nordahl] to argue his stay as a defense when we do ask him to relocate," he said. But Nordahl said he refused to sign the agreement because he did not agree with its terms. "It had a number of conditions that did not make sense to me," Nordahl said in an interview. "I wasn't ready to give up my tenancy rights. I am not going to sign them." Fernicola said he never received a request from Nordahl or Gonos to change the language in the agreement.