Borough of Matawan v. Tree Haven Apartments, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 December 1969 |
| Citation | 108 N.J.Super. 111,260 A.2d 235 |
| Parties | BOROUGH OF MATAWAN, Petitioner-Respondent, v. TREE HAVEN APARTMENTS, INC., Respondent-Appellant, and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondent. BOROUGH OF MATAWAN, Petitioner-Respondent, v. RAVINE APARTMENTS, INC., Respondent-Appellant, and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Stephen C. Carton, Asbury Park, for appellants (Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis, Asbury Park, attorneys).
Louis R. Aikins, West End, for respondent Borough of Matawan.
Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., filed a statement in lieu of brief on behalf of respondent Division of Tax Appeals.
Before Judges KILKENNY, LABRECQUE and LEONARD.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
LABRECQUE, J.A.D.
In these consolidated appeals Tree Haven Apartments, Inc. (Tree Haven) and Ravine Apartments, Inc. (Ravine) challenge judgments of the Division of Tax Appeals (the Division) fixing the assessments on their apartment properties for the year 1967.
The original assessment, the county tax board action and the taxable value found by the Division as to each property are as follows:
Tree Haven Apartments, Inc. Ravine Apartments, Inc
----------------------------- -----------------------
Original Assessment
-----------------------------
Land $ 80,600 $ 60,000
Improvements 487,600 484,000
-------- --------
Total $568,200 $544,000
County Board Action
-----------------------------
Land $ 62,600 $ 60,000
Improvements 417,400 420,000
-------- --------
Total $480,000 $480,000
Value found by Division
-----------------------------
Land $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Improvements 498,000 498,000
-------- --------
Total $558,000 $558,000
The two properties adjoined and were under common ownership. Each consisted of a garden-apartment complex, with its attendant parking areas, driveways and recreational facilities. The present appeals do not challenge the correctness of the valuations arrived at by the Division. Instead both appellants urge that after having found true value, the judge of the Division should have fixed the assessment on each parcel to 89.15% Thereof, to conform to the asserted average ratio of assessments to true values in the Borough of Matawan. In addition, Ravine challenges the right of the Division to fix its assessment at an amount in excess of the amount of the original assessment. In support of the true value assessment fixed by the Division, Matawan urges that (1) the taxpayers' original appeals were not based upon a claim of discrimination, and (2) there was no proof adduced by either party as to the common level for the year in question.
The power of the county board of taxation [board] to grant relief is a statutory one. N.J.S.A. 54:3--21 permits an appeal to the board by any taxpayer (1) aggrieved by the assessed valuation of his property, or (2) 'feeling that he is discriminated against by the assessed valuation of other property in the county.' Inquiry as to the reasons urged in support of the reduction sought by appellants at the board level reveals no mention of the second reason referred to (i.e., discrimination). In the space in each petition of appeal calling for the 'reasons' for the reduction sought, each appellant asserted that 'the assessment is in excess of true value.' Hence, in the absence of anything in the record to indicate any other basis for the assessments fixed by the board, we conclude that, in response to the contentions set forth above, they represented the board's findings as to true value.
Matawan's appeals to the Division prayed that each property be determined 'to have a true value' of a stated amount (corresponding with the amount of the original assessment) and that the assessment be fixed at that figure. Further, as the result of our inquiry at oral argument, we are convinced that the taxpayers did not advance discrimination as an issue at the De novo hearing. This would seem to account for the absence of any formal proof on that issue by either side. The only 'proof' now relied upon by the taxpayers is a statement contained in the written report of their appraisal expert that the 'equalization' ratio for 1966 had been 89.15%.
It is a general rule that, in determining tax appeals, the Division may not be guided by any standard other than that fixed by law (here 100% Of true value) unless the taxpayer, Alleging discrimination, proves the existence and general use by the assessor of a different common level or ratio of assessments to true value, and subjection of his property to a discriminatory assessment above that level. Cf. City of Passaic v. Botany Mills, 72 N.J.Super. 449, 457, 178 A.2d 657 (App.Div.1962), certif. den. 37 N.J. 231, 181 A.2d 13 (1962). Where it is made to appear that there is no common level, relief from a discriminatory assessment may be had on the basis of the average ratio of assessments to true values. In re Appeals of Kents 2124 Atlantic Ave., Inc., 34 N.J. 21, 166 A.2d 763 (1961). In using the average ratio, consideration may properly be given to any weakness or imbalance which may appear in connection with its use, in order to assure that it is not grossly deceptive as a fair gauge of the ratio of assessments to true values. Id., at pp. 31--32, 166 A.2d 763. The award of relief based upon discrimination presupposes proof bearing on that issue and the opportunity of the municipality to meet such proof.
Since the issue of discrimination was not raised by the taxpayers either before the board or the Division, it was not error to fail to award relief on that score. Cleff Realty Co. v. Jersey City, 41 N.J.Super. 465, 125 A.2d 423 (App.Div.1956), certif. den. 23 N.J. 58, 127 A.2d 227 (1956). Further, assuming that it had been raised as an issue, the proofs adduced were inadequate to sustain a claim of discrimination. North Bergen Tp. v. Venino, 45 N.J.Super. 143, 147, 131 A.2d 792 (App.Div.1957). Here there was nothing before the Division but the statement, buried in the face sheet of an appraisal report, that the 1966 equalization ratio was 89.15%.
We turn next to consideration of Ravine's contention that the fixing of its assessment at a figure $14,000 higher than the original assessment was error. Neither party has cited any reported case, and we know of none, which has passed upon the issue. Matawan relies principally upon N.J.S.A. 54:2--35 which, in the case of an appeal from an action of the county tax board, authorizes the Division to give 'such judgment therein as it may think proper.'
In Hackensack v. Rubinstein, 37 N.J. 39, 52, 178 A.2d 625 (1962), where the City of Hackensack (as did Matawan here), appealed to the Division from reductions granted the appealing taxpayers, the court opened the door to further reductions, holding that once the Division obtained jurisdiction of the appeal, and notwithstanding the failure of the taxpayers to cross-appeal, they were free to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains.
...by the municipality affirmatively seeking such an increase. The Appellate Division, following Borough of Matawan v. Tree Haven Apartments, Inc., 108 N.J.Super. 111, 260 A.2d 235 (App.Div.1969), held that in the absence of a timely appeal on the part of the taxing district, an original asses......
-
Devonshire Development Associates v. City of Hackensack
...123) on the limitation imposed by the jurisdiction of the county tax boards and the Tax Court, by Matawan v. Tree Haven Apartments, Inc., 108 N.J.Super. 111, 260 A.2d 235 (App.Div.1969). The facts Taxpayer filed a complaint in the Tax Court alleging that the Bergen County Tax Board (board) ......
-
Rabstein v. Princeton Tp.
...consolidated interlocutory appeals question the continued viability of this court's decision in Matawan v. Tree Haven Apartments, Inc., 108 N.J.Super. 111, 260 A.2d 235 (App.Div.1969). The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff Rabstein is the owner of residential property located at 243 Merce......
-
Springfield Tp. v. Weinberg
...value of such property as a whole. See Hackensack v. Rubenstein, 37 N.J. 37-39, 178 A.2d 625 (1952); Matawan v. Tree Haven Apts., Inc., 108 N.J.Super. 111, 115, 260 A.2d 235 (App.Div.1969). The taxpayer appeals for purposes of achieving a reduction of the total assessment of his real proper......