What Happened: A kitchen remodeling company signed a three-year lease on property for use as a retail kitchen and bathroom showroom. The landlord evicted the tenant for not paying rent and got a warrant to remove the tenant’s property. The tenant asked the court to issue an order requiring the landlord to either reinstate the lease or let it back in to remove the kitchen cabinets from the showroom. The landlord opposed the application, claiming that the tenant forfeited its right to any property in the premises under Section 20 of the lease, which stated:  

Removal of Tenant's Property. Any equipment, fixtures, goods or other property of the Tenant that are not removed by the Tenant upon the termination of this Lease, or upon any quitting, vacating or abandonment of the Premises by the Tenant, or upon the Tenant's eviction, will be considered as abandoned and the Landlord will have the right, without any notice to the Tenant, to sell or otherwise dispose of the same, at the expense of the Tenant, and will not be accountable to the Tenant for any part of the proceeds of such sale, if any.

The court brushed aside the landlord’s objections and gave the tenant 24 hours to remove the property. But the tenant didn’t take advantage of the opportunity. And the landlord appealed the court order.   

Ruling: The New Jersey court affirmed the order but also issued a new order declaring that any of the property the tenant failed to remove had been abandoned.

Reasoning: The “clear terms” Section 20 resolved any doubts on the abandonment issue. Under the clause’s express terms, “equipment, fixtures, goods or other property” would be deemed abandoned if not removed upon eviction. The tenant was, in fact, evicted and the property wasn’t removed. In issuing the order, the lower court wasn’t nullifying Section 20 but exercising its discretion to give the tenant one last chance to remove its property. But the tenant squandered this last chance. It was also fully aware of the risks to its property once the landlord initiated legal proceedings. “Under the circumstances, the only conclusion is that [the tenant] abandoned any property not removed from the premises.”

• Remaq Corp. v. VIP Kitchen & Granite, Inc., 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1337, 2025 LX 264569, 2025 WL 1982314