Calandra v. Montclair Twp.

Decision Date16 March 2022
Docket Number003614-2019,005048-2018,005753-2020
CourtTax Court of New Jersey
PartiesCalandra, Luciano Jr. & Teresa L. v. Montclair Twp.

Calandra, Luciano Jr. & Teresa L.
v.
Montclair Twp.

Nos. 005048-2018, 003614-2019, 005753-2020

Tax Court of New Jersey

March 16, 2022


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

Nathan Wolf, Esq. Wolf Vespasiano LLC Joseph Sordillo, Esq. DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C.

Dear Mr. Wolf and Mr. Sordillo:

This letter constitutes the court's opinion following trial in the above-referenced matters challenging the 2018, 2019, and 2020 tax year assessments on plaintiffs' single-family residence.

For the reasons stated more fully below, the court affirms the 2018, 2019, and 2020 tax year local property tax assessments.

I. Procedural History and Factual Findings

Luciano Calandra, Jr. and Teresa L. Calandra ("plaintiffs") are the owners of the single-family residence located at 164 Wildwood Avenue, Montclair Township, Essex County, New Jersey. The property is identified on defendant, Montclair Township's ("Montclair") municipal tax map as Block 2504, Lot 7 (the "subject property"). For the 2018, 2019, and 2020 tax years, the subject property's local property tax assessment was as follows:

Land:

$ 429, 600

Improvements:

$1, 241, 000

Total

$1, 670, 600

1

The average ratio of assessed to true value, commonly referred to as the Chapter 123 ratio, for Montclair for the 2018 tax year is 100%, for 2019 tax year is 90.23% and for the 2020 tax year is 89.51%. See N.J.S.A. 54:1-35a(a). When the average ratio is applied to the local property tax assessment, the subject property's implied equalized value is: (i) $1, 670, 600, for the 2018 tax year; (ii) $1, 851, 491, for the 2019 tax year; and (iii) $1, 866, 384, for the 2020 tax year.

Plaintiffs timely filed direct appeals with the Tax Court challenging the subject property's 2018, 2019, and 2020 tax year local property tax assessments. In response, Montclair filed counterclaims for the 2019 and 2020 tax years.

During trial, both plaintiffs and Montclair offered testimony from State of New Jersey certified general real estate appraisers, who were accepted by the court as experts in the property valuation field, without objection.[1] Each expert prepared an appraisal report that was admitted into evidence by the court.[2], [3]

Based on the evidence presented, the court concludes that the subject property is a 2½ story Tudor colonial-style, single-family residence constructed in approximately 1902, situated on a .512-acre rectangular shaped lot. The subject property has approximate lot dimensions of 100'

2

wide and 223' deep. The property contains a manicured landscape with a home finished in white stucco and dark brown trim. The gross living area of the residence is 5, 412 square feet, consisting of 7 bedrooms, 5 full bathrooms, and 1 half-bathroom.[4] The first floor of the residence includes an eat-in kitchen, foyer, dining room, den, sunroom, butler's pantry, mudroom, and half bathroom. The second floor of the residence includes the master bedroom, master bathroom, four bedrooms, three full bathrooms, and a small balcony. The third floor includes two bedrooms, a family room, and one full bathroom. A total of five fireplaces are found in the 2½ stories. The subject property's kitchen is well appointed with white wood cabinetry, stainless steel appliances, granite/quartzite countertops, a center island, a farmhouse style sink, a subway tile backsplash, and ceramic tile flooring.[5] The dining room features built-in wood cabinetry and a coffered ceiling with French doors that open onto the sunroom. The witness testimony and the court's review of the interior photographs discloses that although well-maintained and functional, the subject property's bathrooms have not been recently fully renovated and do not have features found in several other homes in the subject property's market area.[6] For instance, the subject property's master bathroom contains three fixtures, a stall shower, a single console sink, and a toilet. The unfinished basement contains a laundry area, a storage area, and an area containing approximately twenty-one wine

3

storage cubes stacked in seven columns, each column bearing a height of approximately six feet.[7]In addition, the property contains a two-car detached garage, an in-ground pool with spa, a covered outdoor patio, and an open porch. Plaintiff, Luciano Calandra, Jr., acquired the subject property on August 27, 2003, for a reported consideration of $1, 325, 000.

The subject property is situated in the Watchung Plaza neighborhood of Upper Montclair, located approximately two blocks from the Watchung Avenue Station, providing N.J. Transit commuter rail service.

Finally, the home is in Montclair's R-1, One Family Residence District. Principal uses permitted in the district include one-family detached dwellings, carriage houses (where qualified as a permitted use), and municipal facilities. Therefore, the subject property is a legally permitted and conforming use within the R-1 zoning district.

II. Conclusions of Law

a. Presumption of Validity

"Original assessments and judgments of county boards of taxation are entitled to a presumption of validity." MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of Mountain Lakes, 18 N.J. Tax 364, 373 (Tax 1998). "Based on this presumption, the appealing taxpayer has the burden of proving that the assessment is erroneous." Pantasote Co. v. Passaic City, 100 N.J. 408, 413 (1985) (citing Riverview Gardens v. North Arlington Bor., 9 N.J. 167, 174 (1952)). "The presumption of correctness . . . stands, until sufficient competent evidence to the contrary is adduced." Little Egg Harbor Twp. v. Bonsangue, 316 N.J.Super. 271, 285-86 (App. Div. 1998). A taxpayer can only

4

rebut the presumption by introducing "cogent evidence" of true value; that is, evidence "definite, positive and certain in quality and quantity to overcome the presumption." Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Newark City, 10 N.J. 99, 105 (1952). Thus, at the close of plaintiff's proofs, the court must be presented with evidence which raises a "debatable question as to the validity of the assessment." MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC, 18 N.J. Tax at 376. "Only after the presumption is overcome with sufficient evidence . . . must the court 'appraise the testimony, make a determination of true value and fix the assessment.'" Greenblatt v. Englewood City, 26 N.J. Tax 41, 52 (Tax 2011) (quoting Rodwood Gardens, Inc. v. City of Summit, 188 N.J.Super. 34, 38-39 (App. Div. 1982)).

At the close of plaintiffs' proofs, Montclair moved to dismiss these matters under R. 4:37-2(b), arguing that plaintiffs failed to overcome the presumption of validity and that plaintiffs' expert's conclusions of value amounted to net opinions. The court denied Montclair's motion and placed a statement of reasons on the record.

However, concluding that the presumption of validity has been overcome does not equate to a finding by the court that the tax assessment is erroneous. Once the presumption has been overcome, "the court must then turn to a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties and conclude the matter based on a fair preponderance of the evidence." Ford Motor Co. v. Edison Twp., 127 N.J. 290, 312 (1992). Here, although the proofs, when measured against the liberal standards employed in evaluating a motion under R. 4:37-2(b), were sufficient to overcome the presumption of validity at the close of plaintiff's case-in-chief, "the burden of proof remain[s] on the taxpayer . . . to demonstrate that the judgment under review was incorrect." Id. at 314-15 (citing Pantasote Co., 100 N.J. at 413). b. Highest and Best Use

"For local property tax purposes, property must be valued at its highest and best use."

5

Entenmann's Inc. v. Totowa Borough, 18 N.J. Tax 540, 545 (Tax 2000). The determination of the highest and best use of a property is "the first and most important step in the valuation process." Ford Motor Co. v. Edison Twp., 10 N.J. Tax 153, 161 (Tax 1988), aff'd, 127 N.J. 290 (1992). The highest and best use analysis involves the "sequential consideration of the following four criteria, determining whether the use of the subject property is: 1) legally permissible; 2) physically possible; 3) financially feasible; and 4) maximally productive." Clemente v. South Hackensack Twp., 27 N.J. Tax 255, 267-69 (Tax 2013), aff'd, 28 N.J. Tax 337 (App. Div. 2015).

Here, plaintiffs' expert and Montclair's expert both opined that the highest and best use of the subject property, as improved, was the continuation of the subject property's use as a single-family residence, and, as vacant, was for development of a single-family residence.[8] The court accepts the experts' highest and best use conclusions. c. Valuation Approach

"There are three traditional appraisal methods utilized to predict what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller on a given date, applicable to different types of properties: the comparable sales method, capitalization of income and cost." Brown v. Borough of Glen Rock, 19 N.J. Tax 366, 376 (App. Div. 2001) (citing Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 81 (11th ed. 1996), certif. denied, 168 N.J. 291 (2001)). "[T]he answer as to which approach should predominate depends upon the facts in the particular case." WCI-Westinghouse, Inc. v. Edison Twp., 7 N.J. Tax 610, 619 (Tax 1985), aff'd, 9 N.J. Tax 86 (App. Div. 1986).

6

The sales comparison approach derives an opinion of market value "by comparing properties similar to the subject property that have recently sold, are listed for sale, or are under contract." Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 377 (14th ed. 2013). The sales comparison approach involves a "comparative analysis of properties" and requires the expert to focus on the "similarities and differences that affect value . . . which may include...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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