Colonial Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. State Bd. of Tax Appeals

• Citation: 126 N.J.L. 126,18 A.2d 625
• Decision Date: 12 March 1941
• Docket Number: No. 242.,242.
• Parties: COLONIAL LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

18 A.2d 625

126 N.J.L. 126

COLONIAL LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA

v. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al.

No. 242.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 12, 1941.

Certiorari by the Colonial Life Insurance Company of America against the State Board of Tax Appeals and the City of Jersey City to review a judgment of the Board.

Affirmed.

Argued October term, 1940, before CASE, DONGES, and HEHER, JJ.

William R. Gannon, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.

James A. Hamill, of Jersey City (Frank P. McCarthy, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendants.

HEHER, Justice.

The question for decision is whether the taxing district of Jersey City has overassessed lands of prosecutor for taxation for the year 1938. The assessment was in the sum of $52,300. It was affirmed by the county board of taxation, but reduced to $47,000 by the State Board of Tax Appeals.

The local assessor is enjoined to "determine the full and fair value" of the taxable land "at such price as, in his judgment, it would sell for at a fair and bona fide sale by private contract" on the prior October 1. R.S.1937, 54:4-23, N.J.S.A. 54:4-23. Vide Art. IV, sec. VII, par. 12 of the State Constitution, N.J.S.A. There is at the outset a presumption in favor of the quantum of the assessment as made by the local authority; and the onus of proof of an excessive valuation is upon the landowner. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Newark, 118 N.J.L. 490, 193 A. 844, affirmed 124 N.J.L. 451, 12 A.2d 675; Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 122 N.J.L. 596, 7 A.2d 628; Gannon v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 N.J.L. 450, 9 A.2d 531; Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. State Tax Department, 112 N.J.L. 5, 169 A. 489; Estell v. Hawkens, 50 N.J.L. 122, 11 A. 265. While it is the undoubted function of this court to revise an immoderate valuation, R.S. 1937, 2:81-8; 54:4-59, N.J.S.A. 2:81-8; 54:4-59, due regard must needs be had for the experience of the county and state boards of taxation in matters of appraisement. In passing upon a value fixed by the old state board of equalization of taxes, this court said: "The valuation having been adjudged by a statutory tribunal erected for the particular purpose and experienced in such matters, this court will be loth to interfere with its findings on matters of fact, * * * unless the evidence is persuasive that injustice has been done." Kearny v. Board of Equalization of Taxes, 81 N.J.L. 106, 78 A. 1050. See, also, Kearny v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, 103 N.J.L. 26, 135 A. 61, affirmed Id., 103 N.J.L. 699, 137 A. 919.

So tested, the judgment under review is unassailable. The land is unimproved. It is situate at the southwest corner of Hudson Boulevard and Van Winkle Avenue, fronting 121 feet on the Boulevard and 116 feet on the avenue—in area, 14,036 square feet. Prosecutor's expert valued the parcel at $31,700. This appraisal was based upon a "unit rate of $250 per foot" for a frontage of 100 feet on the Boulevard. There were additional allowances for the "triangle" and "corner influence." The witness also took into account what he deemed to be "comparable sales." Applying the same unit rule, these sale prices were at the rate of $240, $170 and $130 per front foot. The valuation placed upon the property by the city's expert was at the rate of $480 per front foot. He adduced what he considered as comparable sales—carticularly one made in December, 1936, of land on Pavonia Avenue, near the locus, for $125,000, or at the rate of $480 per front foot. This parcel is situate four blocks south of the locus, in an "apartment house section," and is "used as a parking lot."

The assessment, as reduced, represents an appraisement of $400 per front foot; and the insistence is that "It is not supported by any evidence * * * unless the Pavonia Avenue * * * sale (three years previous) is taken as the sole criterion, and the latest sales relied upon by prosecutor's...