Goldberg v. Traver
| Decision Date | 10 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | Nos. A--153--A--155,s. A--153--A--155 |
| Citation | 245 A.2d 334,52 N.J. 344 |
| Parties | David J. GOLDBERG, State Commissioner of Transportation, New Jersey State Department of Transportation and State of New Jersey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lawrence R. TRAVER, Tax Collector of the Township of Livingston, Township of Livingston, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents. David J. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of State Highway Department, New Jersey State Department of Transportation and State of New Jersey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Allan BERNARDINI, Tax Collector of the City of Vineland, City of Vineland, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents. David J. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of Transportation, New Jersey State Department of Transportation, and State of New Jersey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Milan H. HARTZ, Tax Collector of the Township of Millburn, and Township of Millburn, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
David A. Biederman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellants (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).
Louis Bort, Livingston, for respondents Traver and Township of Livingston.
Bennett I. Bardfeld, Vineland, for respondents Bernardini and City of Vineland.
Harold M. Kain, Newark, for respondents Hartz and Township of Millburn.
The opinion of the court was delivered
In each of these matters, the defendant municipality attempted to sell real property owned by the State for nonpayment of taxes for the balance of the calendar year in which the State acquired title. In each case the year involved is 1966 and the State's acquisition occurred before June 9 of that year, on which day we decided that the property acquired by the State remains liable for local taxes for the whole of the calendar year during which the acquisition occurred. City of East Orange v. Palmer, 47 N.J. 307, 220 A.2d 679 (1966). Prior thereto, the State conceived that the taxes abated Pro rata as of the date it acquired title. Hence in each case here involved, the taxes were paid to the date of the State's acquisition but not for the balance of 1966.
The State brought these actions to restrain the tax sales. The sales were restrained, but it was adjudged that the lands remained liable for the balance of the 1966 taxes, and the State appealed from that part of the judgments. We certified the matters before argument in the Appellate Division.
In City of East Orange v. Palmer we concluded that the legislative scheme contemplated a municipality should receive the full amount of the taxes notwithstanding a transfer to an exempt holder during the calendar year for which the taxes were levied. We found that view furthered the legislative aim of maximum stability with respect to anticipated revenues. It nonetheless is perfectly clear that the State consistently acted on the premise that taxes abated Pro rata upon the State's acquisition of property and that the cases, cited in City of East Orange v. Palmer, which had held otherwise with respect to acquisitions by municipal corporations did not apply to the State itself. So far as is known, no municipality challenged the State other than the City of East Orange, which did so successfully in City of East Orange v. Palmer.
The question is whether our holding in City of East Orange v. Palmer should be given retrospective application, and if so, for what period. The very concern for fiscal stability in public matters upon which that decision rested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
...of the law, but we will not have them if they stand to gain nothing through their efforts. As we have held in Goldberg v. Traver, 52 N.J. 344, 347, 245 A.2d 334 (1968), "[u]nless the immediate litigant can hope to gain, there would be no incentive to challenge existing practices or prior ho......
-
Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Madison Tp.
...incentive to challenge existing practices or prior holdings which, in the public interest, ought to be reviewed.' Goldberg v. Traver, 52 N.J. 344, 347, 245 A.2d 334, 336 (1968). Finally, issuance of a variance or building permit under these circumstances also serves to protect the interests......
-
Raubar v. Raubar
...124 N.J.Super. 334, 306 A.2d 500 (Law Div.1973); Goldberg v. Traver, 99 N.J.Super. 103, 238 A.2d 695 (Ch.Div.1968) rev'd 52 N.J. 344, 245 A.2d 334 (1968).4 In Chisom, supra., Justice Scalia, in dissent, criticized the majority's construction of the 1982 amendment to Section 2 of the Voting ......
-
Com. of Pa. v. Kervick
...Court's Views as to Retroactive Effect of Its Own Decisions Announcing New Rules,' 22 L.Ed.2d 821 (1969); Cf. Goldberg et al. v. Traver, et al., 52 N.J. 344, 245 A.2d 334 (1968); Willis, et al. v. Dept. of Cons. & Ec. Dev., 55 N.J. 534, 264 A.2d 34 (1970); Darrow v. Hanover Township, 58 N.J......