Baldwin Const. Co. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation

• Decision Date: 01 September 1953
• Docket Number: No. A--144,A--144
• Citation: 16 N.J. 329,108 A.2d 598
• Parties: BALDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO. et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION and City of East Orange, Defendants-Appellants. ,
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 329

16 N.J. 329

108 A.2d 598

BALDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO. et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION and City of East Orange Defendants-Appellants.

No. A--144, Sept. Term, 1953; No. A--16, Sept. Term, 1954.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 17, 1954.

Reargued Sept. 13, 1954.

Decided Oct. 25, 1954.

Milton B. Conford, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph A. Murphy, Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., argued the cause for appellants (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen., David D. Furman, Deputy Atty. Gen., and James Rosen, Union City, on the brief for appellant Essex County Board of Taxation; Donald Karrakis, East Orange, on the brief, for appellant City of East Orange).

Herbert J. Hannoch and Blair Reiley, Newark, argued the cause for respondents (Joseph L. Lippman and Morris Weinstein, Newark, on the brief; Hannoch, Weinstein, Myers & Stern, Martin & Reiley, Selick J. Mindes, Levy & Krauss, Sanderson & Engel, and Clancy & Clancy, Newark, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

HEHER, J.

By this proceeding in lieu of Certiorari under Article VI, Section V, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of 1947, implemented by Rule 3:81--1 et seq., now R.R. 4:88--1 et seq., the plaintiff landowners seek relief from what is asserted to be discrimination in the assessments for taxation laid upon their several pieces of property in the City of East Orange for the year 1952, whereby they have been subjected to a disproportionate share of the tax burden in violation of the principle of equality secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article VIII, Section I, paragraph 1 of the State Constitution, and the tax statute itself.

The litigation comprises seven separate proceedings at law in lieu of Certiorari to review 107 increases of land assessments in five municipalities of Essex County, viz., East Orange, Verona, Caldwell, Bloomfield and Belleville. There were other assessment revisions in these and still other municipalities which are not under direct judicial attack. The case now before us relates to the challenged East Orange assessments; but the complaints in all the proceedings are in substance the same.

On January 10, 1952 the local assessors in Essex County returned to the Essex County Board of Taxation their several assessment lists and duplicates in accordance with R.S. 54:4--35, as amended by L.1943, c. 120, N.J.S.A.; and the county board thereupon undertook the performance of its statutory function to examine, revise and correct the tax lists and duplicates, R.S. 54:4--46, 54:4--55, N.J.S.A., an integral part of the assessment process itself. Hackensack Water Company v. Division of Tax Appeals, 2 N.J. 157, 164, 65 A.2d 828 (1949); Middletown Tp. v. Ivins, 102 N.J.L. 36, 41, 130 A. 648 (Sup.Ct.1925). On March 10 ensuing, the county board advised the various local assessors by telephone of prospective 'changes in some assessments in some parts of the county'; and on March 20 the board ordered specific corrections and revisions of the tax lists, and directed the assessors to conform. The revised East Orange tax list concerns 62 parcels of real property and 13 owners of personal property. There were numerous revisions and corrections of assessments in the several municipalities of Essex County. At a meeting of the various local assessors and the county board held March 24 following, the 'Local Assessors,' it is averred in the complaint, protested the revision of the East Orange assessments. There were like complaints by other assessors: 'Many assessors, including the Local Assessors,' asserted that 'in picking out properties here and there throughout the County' for increased assessments, the county board visited upon the particular landowners 'an unfair share' of the tax burden, but the board's president gave assurances that although the board 'had attemtped to comply' with the statutory direction to revise, correct and equalize the assessments, for 'lack of time, lack of information and particularly lack of funds (the County Freeholders having allotted only $25,000 to the County Tax Board for this purpose),' the board could not comply with the law and therefore 'had undertaken a partial adjustment of some of the assessments,' and the law afforded the means of correcting 'errors' attending revision under 'pressure.'

It was also alleged that while the taxable parcels of real property in East Orange numbered 1650, the assessment revisions and corrections involved but 62; that the assessments on parcels of real property fronting Central Avenue were increased 100% As to land, in some cases 200%, and 33 1/3% As to building, but no comparable change was made as to other properties in the immediate area; that there were arbitrary increases in building assessments on this street, irrespective of age or physical condition of the structure, and 'Special purpose buildings, designed for particular use of and occupied by owners, were increased in the same manner as buildings designed for general use'; that there was arbitrary discrimination between 'residences' and apartment houses, and 'changes' in the assessments on business properties were confined to 'some, not all, property located within a particular area of Main Street'; and that 'changes' were made in only 13 of 20,000 personal property assessments in the city.

In particular, it is charged in the complaint that the assessment of the land at No. 630 Central Avenue, in the ownership of the plaintiff Doop Realty Co., has been tripled and the building assessment increased by one-third, and the land assessment 'is now at the rate of about $1,120 per front foot, as compared with $420 per front foot, the assessment of the adjoining property'; that the land assessment of the plaintiff Savings Investment & Trust Company, at the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Harrison Street, has been doubled and the assessment on the building, which includes its banking house, increased by one-third, and so this plaintiff's land assessment 'is at the rate of about $778 per Central Avenue front foot, as compared with about $152 per Central Avenue front foot, the assessment of the property across the street'; that the land assessment of the plaintiff Tishman Realty & Construction Co., Inc., at the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Halstead Street, has been tripled and its building assessment increased one-third, while the assessment of the property on the opposite northeast corner, valued 'upon the same basis as plaintiff's property,' stands unchanged, and now this plaintiff's land assessment 'is at the rate of about $1,000 per Central Avenue front foot (including one corner influence), as compared with about $350 per Central Avenue front foot (including two corner influences) of the adjacent property,' and the building assessment is also on 'a higher basis than that of the adjacent property.'

Referring to a report made to the county board by a committee for 'equalization of assessments' organized in 1951 by the Association of Municipal Assessors of Essex County 'at the request of and with the approval' of the board, the complaint says that an analysis of all real property sales in Essex County during the year 1950 reveals that 'with the exception of industrial properties, real estate located in East Orange was assessed at a higher percentage of full and fair value than the county-wide average'--I.e., the county-wide average assessment on residence properties was 42.1% Of 'full and fair value,' but the 'percentage applicable to East Orange was $49.9%;' on apartment houses (six families and over) the county-wide assessment average was 59.4% Of full and fair value, and the East Orange average 64.2%; on commercial properties the county-wide assessment average was 59.8%, and the East Orange average 65.9%; on industrial properties the county-wide assessment average was 66.1%, and the East Orange average 56.5%; and vacant land was assessed at a county-wide average of 59.7%, while the East Orange average was 67.7%. And, generally, it is charged that the 1952 assessments of plaintiffs' properties, 'as changed' by the county board, 'are in excess of the percentage of full and fair value assessed against other properties of the same class.'

The complaint affirms that plaintiffs 'have been unable to ascertain exactly what reasons, basis or method, if any, was adopted' by the county board 'in singling out plaintiffs' properties for increase in assessments'; but it is charged that the action taken by the board 'was not in compliance with any statute or statutory method,' but rather 'in direct violation thereof,' and the increase of plaintiffs' assessments 'was intentional and violative of the principle of practical uniformity in assessment,' and 'discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious.'

There is a further allegation that the county board's 'sole jurisdiction' to 'direct an increase in assessment of Specific properties in a specific taxing district exists only as a part of a complete revision, correction and equalization of assessed values of All the property in a taxing district in order to tax All property equally and at full value,' and so the particular assessment increases constitute an excess of power. As just said, the constitutional principle of equality is also invoked; and it is urged in the complaint that 'where it is impossible to secure both the standard of full value and the uniformity and equality required by law, the latter requirement must be adopted as the just and ultimate purpose of the law.' It is also asserted that plaintiffs' properties 'are being assessed in excess of the same standard of value of similar properties in the taxing district of East Orange,' in disregard of the mandate of the State Constitution.

Denying that there is a 'prompt, effective, efficient or adequate' administrative review 'except through these proceedings,' the complaint declares that assuming an 'available administrative...