The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division recently ruled in favor of several plaintiffs who accused a law firm of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court's decision, issued on November 10, 2026, reverses a lower court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaints, which alleged that the firm improperly collected fees in landlord-tenant eviction cases.

This ruling affects multiple plaintiffs, including Jhon Castillo, Tomas Rojas, Evelia Sosa, and Benita Guerra, who claimed that Sammarro & Zalarick, P.A. and attorney Gary J. Zalarick engaged in deceptive practices when seeking to collect attorneys' fees and filing fees as part of their eviction actions. The case highlights the ongoing legal scrutiny of debt collection practices, especially in landlord-tenant disputes.

The dispute began when the plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits against the defendants, alleging that they violated the FDCPA by misrepresenting the amounts owed in eviction cases. The Appellate Division's ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal obligations of attorneys and law firms in debt collection scenarios, particularly in the context of landlord-tenant relationships.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case are a group of tenants who faced eviction actions filed by Sammarro & Zalarick, P.A. in Passaic County, New Jersey. They allege that the law firm improperly sought to collect attorneys' fees and filing fees as part of the rent owed, despite the absence of provisions in their leases that allowed such charges. The plaintiffs assert that these actions violated the FDCPA, which aims to protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices.

The case reached the Appellate Division after the lower court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints on March 24, 2025, stating that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiffs then appealed the decision, arguing that their complaints did indeed present valid claims under the FDCPA.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, in a decision authored by Judges Smith, Vinci, and Zazzali-Hogan, reversed the lower court's dismissal of the complaints. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged violations of the FDCPA, stating, "We conclude plaintiffs' complaints set forth legally cognizable claims based on alleged violations of the FDCPA and the court improperly granted defendants' motions to dismiss."

The court emphasized that the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using false or misleading representations in connection with the collection of debts. It noted that the law firm’s inclusion of attorneys' fees and filing fees as part of the rent owed was misleading, particularly since the leases did not support such claims. The judges highlighted that the plaintiffs were induced to believe they would be evicted unless they paid the disputed fees, which constituted a violation of their rights under the FDCPA.

Impact

The court's ruling has significant implications for both tenants and landlords in New Jersey. It reinforces the protections afforded to consumers under the FDCPA, particularly in landlord-tenant disputes. The decision clarifies that attorneys who regularly file eviction actions can be considered debt collectors and may be held liable for violations of the FDCPA.

This ruling could lead to increased scrutiny of debt collection practices in the context of landlord-tenant relationships, potentially resulting in more lawsuits against law firms that engage in similar practices. It also serves as a reminder for landlords and their attorneys to ensure that any fees collected are explicitly authorized by lease agreements and comply with state law.

What's Next

The defendants may seek to appeal the Appellate Division's decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, although details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. As the legal landscape surrounding debt collection practices continues to evolve, this case may set a precedent for future disputes involving the FDCPA and landlord-tenant law.