[brief] The Instant case involves Defendant’s Motion to Transfer the Special Civil-Part Landlord Tenant Case to the Chancery Division or the Law Division.  2T50-21.  The Defendant is asserting no rent is due because Defendant owns her home after having made all of the necessary payments pursuant to the agreement Defendant made with [...].  2T51-5.  The Court used the relevant factors and legal standard related to transfer of Landlord Tenant cases established under Morroco v. Felton 112 N.J. Super 226 (1970) and Rosanna's Figure Salon v. Bloomfield Top, 253 N.J. Super. 551 (1992).  The Court concluded after an extensive Motion hearing that all evidence supports that Defendant was paying rent, no evidence that they were making payments to pay off a Mortgage, and no indication of fraud.  2T51-21  The Court later conducted a Trial for unpaid rent and entered judgment for possession and unpaid rent.  The Court reasoned in part again that no agreement existed that evidenced any agreement to transfer Ownership to Defendant and the information on the written piece of paper states repeatedly “rent”.  The Defendant’s Appellate Brief concentrates on the issue of whether the Landlord-Tenant Court had “Jurisdiction to Determine Issues of Ownership and Erred in Doing So Particularly without the Benefit Of Witness Testimony Or Careful Examination of Documentary Evidence. ”  (Defendant Appellate Brief at 7)  Plaintiff concurs with the result of the Landlord Tenant case and the reasoning of the decision; moreover, the Plaintiff asserts additional points to buttress the Court’s Decision.  The dispositive issue is whether a Landlord Tenant Relationship exists thereby giving the Landlord Tenant Court Jurisdiction to hear the casw.  The Plaintiff established on uncontroverted direct examination of Mr.  Nieves:  (1)  Plaintiff Owned the Property (2)  Evidence existed that a Landlord Tenant relationship exists between the parties (3)  Defendant owed money to the property owner Landlord.  These three points will be argued in the instant brief via case law.  2T-51-21,  Moreover, the Court on the motion ruling and the trial issue concluded that no Written Agreement was presented by the Defendant evidencing an agreement to sell the property back to the Defendant upon payment of rent.  2T61-2  Also, Plaintiff informed the Court that a Mortgage note of the Private mortgage showed “nothing” about a right of reversion---a right of Defendant to claim this property in any type of reversion.  2T14-19  Moreover, a Deed was prepared with evidence of representation by an Attorney and duly signed by owner of property.  Da37  The Defendant then paid rent of 2100 a month for a long time.  13 years evidencing the arrangement by notations regarding payment of Rent.  2T15-10  The Court’s Ruling on the Motion and the Trial were based on justifiable jurisdiction as a Judge in Landlord Tenant Case; and in New Jersey landlord-tenant cases, the standard of review gives substantial deference to the trial court's factual findings, which the Appellate court should uphold if the findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.  The instant Appeal must be denied because the Landlord Tenant Court had jurisdiction, and prudently applied relevant law to sufficient credible evidence on the record.