Brancasons v. State

• Decision Date: 24 April 1986
• Citation: 510 A.2d 279,210 N.J.Super. 570
• Parties: BRANCASONS, a partnership of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent. BRANCASONS, a partnership of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARLSTADT BOROUGH, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 570

210 N.J.Super. 570

510 A.2d 279

BRANCASONS, a partnership of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent.

BRANCASONS, a partnership of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARLSTADT BOROUGH, Defendant-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued April 8, 1986.

Decided April 24, 1986.

Harry Haushalter, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant and cross-respondent State of N.J. (W. Cary Edwards, Atty. Gen., attorney; James J. Ciancia, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Harry Haushalter, Deputy Atty. Gen. on brief).

Max Manshel, South Orange, for plaintiff-respondent and cross-appellant and plaintiff-appellant Brancasons.

John J. Langan, Jr., Hackensack, for defendant-respondent Borough of Carlstadt (Langan & Lynch, attorneys; John J. Langan, Jr., of counsel and on letter brief).

Before Judges MICHELS, GAULKIN and DEIGHAN.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals concern the liability of both defendant State of New Jersey (the State) and plaintiff Brancasons, ^{1 1} for local property taxes on certain land which is designated tidal and is located within defendant Borough of Carlstadt. By partial summary judgment of the Tax Court, dated August 22, 1983, it was determined that, as of June 18, 1982, Brancasons owned approximately 19.14 acres and the State owned approximately 9.04 acres of land designated as Block 123, Lots 7, 8 and 9 on the tax map of the Borough of Carlstadt. Thereafter, in a consolidated judgment and revised order of the Law Division and Tax Court, dated March 6, 1985, the trial court: (1) ordered the State to reimburse Brancasons in the sum of $1,734.22 for taxes paid to the Borough of Carlstadt on the 9.04 acres of land for the period from June 18, 1982 to December 31, 1982; and (2) denied Brancasons' motion for reconsideration of the prior partial summary judgment of the Tax Court, dated August 22, 1982.

The State now appeals from that portion of the March 6, 1985 judgment and revised order which held that it was liable to Brancasons for property taxes on its riparian property from June 18, 1982 to December 31, 1982. ² In addition, by virtue of this court's grant of leave to appeal, Brancasons appeals from the portion of the judgment and revised order of March 6, 1985 which denied its motion for reconsideration of the prior partial summary judgment of the Tax Court dated August 22, 1983.

We are satisfied from our study of the record and the arguments presented that the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment and denied the motion for reconsideration in these consolidated matters and, further, that all issues of law raised by the State and Brancasons in support of their respective challenges to the judgment and revised order under review are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Accordingly, the judgment and revised order of the Law Division and Tax Court is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Evers in his opinion of July 22, 1983, reported as Brancasons v. Carlstadt Borough, 6 N.J.Tax 1 (Tax Ct.1983), and as supplemented in his memorandum opinion of February 8, 1985, reported as Brancasons v. State of New Jersey, --- N.J.Tax ----, --- A.2d ---- (Law Div. and Tax Ct.1985).

Additionally, we are satisfied that the trial court properly determined, for purposes of applying N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3a, that the State "acquired" the subject tideland property on June 18, 1982, when it was vested with record title by virtue of the consent judgment which was entered in the quiet title action. Although, by virtue of its riparian rights, the State has long held a claim to portions of the Brancasons property, it did not have a "right of possession" and there was no "vesting of title," prior to the entry of this consent judgment. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3c (defining "acquisition" as the right of possession or the vesting of title).

As this court recognized in Dickinson v. Fund for the Support of Free Public Schools, 187 N.J.Super. 224, 230, 454 A.2d 491 (App.Div.1982), modified on other grounds, 95 N.J. 65, 469 A.2d 1 (1983), the State may not, "simply by claiming [tidelands] property, deprive a rightful owner of his title." Since the Legislature contemplated no such action, it established the mechanisms contained within N.J.S.A. 13:1B-13.1 et seq. to enable property owners to challenge the State's claim of title. This legislative plan, as well as the fiscal tax plans of local municipalities would be frustrated if tidelands property was not considered to be "acquired" by the State at the time a quiet title judgment is entered in its favor.

The trial...