Borough of Wrightstown v. Medved

Decision Date05 March 1984
PartiesBOROUGH OF WRIGHTSTOWN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Louis E. MEDVED, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Emerson L. Darnell, Mount Holly, for defendant-appellant.

Sever & Hardt, Burlington, for plaintiff-respondent (Ernest N. Sever, Burlington, on the brief).

Before Judges BISCHOFF, PETRELLA and BRODY.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BRODY, J.A.D.

In an opinion reported at 4 N.J.Tax 582 (1982), the Tax Court upheld the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 against the charge that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The facts are fully stated in the opinion below and need not be repeated here to deal with the legal issues that have been raised. Under attack is a provision which grants a property tax exemption to "the widow" of a New Jersey war veteran who became totally disabled as the result of active military service. Defendant, the widower of such a veteran, claims the exemption. He contends that the statute sexually discriminates against him and his deceased wife. The tax court judge upheld the statute and reversed the county board judgment which had allowed the exemption. We reverse the judgment of the tax court.

The exemption for veterans and their widows appears in N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 (the statute). The relevant provisions are as follows:

a. The dwelling house and the lot or curtilage whereon the same is erected, of any citizen and resident of this State, now or hereafter honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances, from active service, in time of war, in any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States who has been or shall be declared by the United States Veterans Administration or its successors to have a service-connected disability ... declared ... to be a total or 100% permanent disability ... shall be exempt from taxation....

b. The widow of any such citizen and resident of this State who at the time of his death was entitled to the exemption provided under this act, shall be entitled, on proper claim made therefor, to the same exemption as her husband so had, during her widowhood and while a resident of this State, for the time that she is the legal owner thereof and actually occupies the said dwelling house or any other dwelling house thereafter acquired.

The statute also provides an exemption for specific disabling injuries. It is conceded that defendant would qualify for the exemption had he been a disabled veteran's widow.

Art. VIII, § 1, p 1 of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution provides in part: "Property shall be assessed for taxation under general laws and by uniform rules." The exemption provided for in the statute is contrary to that constitutional provision because it is based on the personal status of the owner rather than the use to which the property is put. N.J. Turnpike Auth. v. Washington Tp., 16 N.J. 38, 44-45, 106 A.2d 4 (1954). That provision of the Constitution presents no problem, however, because another provision of the Constitution expressly authorizes the Legislature to enact the exemption in question. Art. VIII, § 1, p 3, prior to a December 8, 1983 amendment provided in relevant part:

3. Any citizen and resident of this State now or hereafter honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances from active service, in time of war or of other emergency as, from time to time, defined by the Legislature, in any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States ... who has been or shall be declared by the United States Veterans Administration, or its successor, to have a service-connected disability, shall be entitled to such ... deduction from taxation as from time to time may be provided by law.... The widow of any [such] citizen and resident of this State ... shall be entitled, during her widowhood, and while a resident of this State, to the deduction or cancellation in this paragraph provided for honorably discharged veterans and to such further deductions as from time to time may be provided by law.

That paragraph also provided an annual tax credit of $50 for veterans and authorized the Legislature to extend the credit to a veteran's widow. The extension was accomplished by N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.10 et seq.

"To withstand constitutional challenge, ... classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 199, 97 S.Ct. 451, 458, 50 L.Ed.2d 397, 407 (1976), reh. den. 429 U.S. 1124, 97 S.Ct. 1161, 51 L.Ed.2d 574 (1977). The burden "is on those defending the discrimination to make out the claim to justification...." Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142, 151, 100 S.Ct. 1540, 1545, 64 L.Ed.2d 107, 116 (1980). The Borough 1 justifies the gender-based classification favoring veterans' widows on the basis that it "was reasonably designed to further the state's policy of cushioning the financial impact of spousal loss upon the sex for whom that loss imposed a disproportionately heavy burden."

The Borough's argument echoes the language of Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U.S. 351, 355, 94 S.Ct. 1734, 1737, 40 L.Ed.2d 189, 193 (1974), on which the tax court exclusively relied. In that case Florida gave all widows a limited tax credit. The court was satisfied that women as a class are economically disadvantaged in the labor market and so the death of a spouse is likely to create special economic hardship on widows not shared by widowers as a class. Here, however, the class of women receiving a tax break is narrower than all widows so the definition of the class must be further justified.

We have noted that the purpose of the veterans' tax-relief legislation was "to compensate veterans for the experiences of war and to encourage veterans to purchase property in the State." Darnell v. Township of Moorestown, 167 N.J.Super. 16, 18, 400 A.2d 492 (App.Div.1979), certif. den. 81 N.J. 292, 405 A.2d 836 (1979). Knowing that his widow will receive the exemption provides assurance to the veteran, the primary object of the Legislature's concern, that she will have some measure of economic relief when there is likely to be a special need for it. In the case of a totally disabled veteran, who is probably not gainfully employed, the need is likely to be especially acute. Yet the statute provides no relief to a surviving spouse if the veteran is a woman. By discriminating in favor of women who are widows of veterans, the statute discriminates against women who are veterans.

The United States and New Jersey Supreme Courts have struck down legislation that produces this back-handed discrimination against women. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 95 S.Ct. 1225, 43 L.Ed.2d 514 (1975) (Social Security benefits to widow but not widowers caring for children of the deceased wage earner); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 97 S.Ct. 1021, 51 L.Ed.2d 270 (1977) (widower but not widow required to prove dependency in order to receive Social Security benefits); Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co., supra (widower but not widow required to prove dependency in order to receive workers' compensation benefits). In striking down a widower's dependency test for workers' compensation benefits, our Supreme...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Garner v. Cherberg
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1988
    ...in "manifest injustice" to a party adversely affected by retroactive application. (Citation omitted.) Wrightstown v. Medved, 193 N.J.Super. 398, 404-05, 474 A.2d 1077 (App.Div.1984). In accordance with these principles, I would hold that the constitutional waiver of confidentiality provisio......
  • Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair, No. 007682-2004 (NJ 3/17/2005)
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • March 17, 2005
    ...Appellate Division and concern a reduction in property taxes for veterans and their surviving spouses. See Bor. of Wrightstown v. Medved, 193 N.J. Super. 398, 403-04 (App. Div. 1984) (finding that "Art. VIII, §1, ¶ 3 of the New Jersey Constitution (prior to its amendment in 1983), N.J.S.A. ......
  • White Birch Farms v. Garritano
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • June 4, 1987
    ...619, 638-639, 512 A.2d 453 (1986); N.J. Parole Bd. v. Byrne, 93 N.J. 192, 212, 460 A.2d 103 (1983); Wrightstown Bor. v. Medved, 193 N.J.Super. 398, 404, 474 A.2d 1077 (App.Div.1984); and Princeton Cablevision Inc. v. Union Valley Corp., 195 N.J.Super. 257, 270, 478 A.2d 1234 (Ch.Div.1983). ......
  • Bentz v. Twp. of Little Egg Harbor, DOCKET NO. 009763-2017
    • United States
    • New Jersey Tax Court
    • July 25, 2018
    ...disabled veteran, who is probably not gainfully employed, the need is likely to be especially acute." Borough of Wrightstown v. Medved, 193 N.J. Super. 398, 402-403 (App. Div. 1984), rev'g 4 N.J. Tax 582 (Tax 1982). Cf. Governor's Press Release, Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Made Eligibl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT