A New Jersey court has denied Justin Carter's appeal to seal an eviction record associated with him, ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its decision. This ruling affects Carter's ability to secure housing as he claims the public record has led to ongoing challenges in finding a home.

The case, Xjh1, LLC v. Justin Carter, was decided by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on November 6, 2026. This decision is significant because it highlights the challenges tenants face when dealing with eviction records and the legal complexities surrounding the sealing of such records.

Background

The dispute began when Xjh1, LLC, the plaintiff, sought an eviction against Justin Carter and several co-defendants for failing to comply with a settlement agreement. On March 21, 2023, the court entered a judgment for possession against Carter and the other defendants due to their non-compliance. This judgment allowed the tenant to file a motion to vacate the judgment if they could demonstrate good reason, such as fraud or newly discovered evidence.

Following the judgment, Carter moved to expunge or seal the eviction record, arguing that he was not the subject of the judgment and that the public record was harming his chances of finding housing. He claimed he had not been properly served with the judgment and faced a risk of homelessness due to the public nature of the eviction filing.

The Ruling

The court ruled against Carter's request to seal the eviction record, affirming the trial court's decision. The judges noted that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carter's motion. They stated, "The trial court found defendant was not entitled under Rule 1:38-3(f)(11) to the relief he sought and had not established good cause to seal the record."

The court explained that Rule 1:38 governs public access to court records, emphasizing that records are generally open for public inspection unless specific exceptions apply. Since a judgment for possession had been entered against Carter less than seven years ago, the exceptions did not apply in this case. The judges pointed out, "Contrary to defendant's assertion that 'he was not the subject of the judgment of possession,' the judgment of possession was expressly entered against him as well as the other defendants."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for tenants facing eviction. It reinforces the principle that eviction records remain public unless specific criteria are met to warrant sealing. The court's decision emphasizes that claims of harm or privacy concerns must be substantiated with clear evidence, not just broad allegations.

Carter's case illustrates the difficulties tenants can encounter when dealing with eviction records. The ruling may deter others in similar situations from seeking to seal their records, knowing that the courts require a strong justification for such requests. This case may also serve as a precedent for future landlord-tenant disputes, emphasizing the importance of following proper legal procedures and documentation.

What's Next

As of now, it is unclear whether Carter plans to appeal the decision further. The court filing did not mention any related cases pending that could impact this ruling. However, the option for an appeal remains open, should Carter choose to pursue it.