Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair, No. 007682-2004 (NJ 3/17/2005)
| Decision Date | 17 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 007682-2004,007682-2004 |
| Parties | LOUIS PAUL HENNEFELD and BLAIR WILLIAM O'DELL, Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
This matter is before the Tax Court on appeal from the Judgment of the Essex County Board of Taxation denying the application of Plaintiffs Louis Paul Hennefeld and Blair William O'Dell (collectively the "Plaintiffs"), for a 100% disabled veteran's property tax exemption ("disabled veteran's exemption") pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30, * for tax year 2004.2 Plaintiffs are the owners of real property located at 512 Park Street, in the Township of Montclair, County of Essex, and further designated by the taxing district as Block 2705, Lot 8 (the "subject property"). The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking an Order directing Defendant Township of Montclair (the "Township") to grant the 100% disabled veteran's exemption. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the court will issue a judgment granting a 100% disabled veteran's exemption from July 12, 2004. The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff Louis Paul Hennefeld (individually "Mr. Hennefeld") served in the United States Air Force from February 19, 1952 to January 14, 1956 and from August 15, 1957 to May 7, 1968. After approximately 15 years of service in the military, Mr. Hennefeld received an honorable discharge. Thereafter, on June 1, 1968 the Veterans Administration determined that Mr. Hennefeld's "wartime service-connected disability was totally disabling." The Plaintiffs are a same-sex couple who have lived together since September 1975. They purchased the subject property as their home on September 9, 1985, taking title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Since 1985, the Plaintiffs have received a 50% disabled veteran's exemption on the subject property.3 Resolutions recognizing Mr. Hennefeld's qualification for a 50% disabled veteran's exemption and authorizing the cancellation of 50% of his property taxes were unanimously adopted by the Montclair Township Council on October 29, 1985. The Plaintiffs never appealed the 50% disabled veteran's exemption they received in 1985, and do not challenge the validity of the prior years' partial exemption in the present matter.4 The Plaintiffs continue to receive the 50% disabled veteran's exemption.
On July 6, 2000, the State of Vermont issued a License and Certificate of Civil Union duly establishing a civil union between the Plaintiffs. On October 22, 2003, the Plaintiffs were legally married under Canadian law in the city of Niagara Falls, Ontario Canada.
The Plaintiffs filed an application with Montclair Tax Assessor Joan Kozeniesky (the "Tax Assessor") on January 17, 2004, claiming that they qualified for a 100% disabled veteran's exemption pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30. On March 1, 2004, the Tax Assessor issued the Plaintiffs a Notice of Disallowance of Claim for Veteran's Exemption/Deduction (the "Notice"). The Notice indicated that the Plaintiffs' On March 29, 2004 the Plaintiffs re-conveyed the subject property to themselves as tenants by the entirety. That same day, the Plaintiffs filed a Petition of Appeal with the Essex County Board of Taxation (the "County Board") challenging the Tax Assessor's decision.
At oral argument, the Township's counsel indicated that it was unlikely the Tax Assessor considered the fine distinctions between varying types of title ownership (such as joint tenancy as opposed to tenancy by the entirety) when approving or disapproving an application for a 100% disabled veteran's exemption. Rather, pursuant to the Township's long-standing interpretation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30, the full disabled veteran's exemption is customarily approved when the qualified disabled veteran is married under a traditional marriage (i.e. male and female). The Tax Assessor's reference to "Legislature (sic) Pending" contained in the Notice was apparently to New Jersey's recent legislation generally known as the Domestic Partnership Act (the "DPA"), L. 2003, c. 246 (N.J.S.A. 26:8A-1 to -12). The DPA was approved on January 12, 2004, but was not effective until July 10, 2004 . On July 12, 2004, the Plaintiffs registered as domestic partners in New Jersey under the provisions of the DPA.
After a hearing was held before the County Board, a Memorandum of Judgment was issued on June 30, 2004 denying the Plaintiffs' appeal on the basis that Mr. Hennefeld did not qualify as a 100% totally disabled veteran. The Plaintiffs immediately brought to the attention of the County Board that Mr. Hennefeld's status as a 100% totally disabled veteran was never challenged. In response, the County Board issued an Amended Memorandum of Judgment dated August 13, 2004 simply denying the Plaintiffs' appeal for the 100% disabled veteran's exemption. The denial of the 100% disabled veteran's exemption application, however, did not effect the Plaintiffs' 50% exemption which they continue to receive. It is from the Amended Memorandum of Judgment that the Plaintiffs filed the present complaint on September 23, 2004, seeking the full 100% disabled veteran's exemption pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30.
The Plaintiffs' supporting papers offered four arguments in favor of their claim for a 100% disabled veteran's exemption. First, the Plaintiffs contend that N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 mandates that they receive a 100% disabled veteran's exemption since they have always owned 100% of the subject property, first as joint tenants with right of survivorship and more recently as tenants by the entirety. Second, the Plaintiffs claim that since New Jersey's DPA authorizes the recognition of their Civil Union in Vermont, they are entitled to all the benefits to which a traditional married couple would be entitled, including the right to hold property by the entirety, and the right of a surviving spouse to continue the disabled veteran's exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30(b). Third, Plaintiffs argue that other New Jersey statutes including N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.11 and N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.18 support their 100% ownership interest in the subject property as tenants by the entirety. Fourth, the Plaintiffs ague that under the doctrine of comity, their legal marriage in Canada, and all the rights pursuant thereto, should be recognized in New Jersey, as no New Jersey statute declares same-sex marriages to be against New Jersey's public policy. At oral argument the Plaintiffs' counsel clarified that his clients' claim to the 100% disabled veteran's exemption was based primarily upon their union in Vermont and marriage in Canada, and not on the DPA.
The Township's responding papers, while admitting to the Plaintiffs' statement of material facts, set forth the Township's opposition to any retroactive applicability of the DPA. The Township takes the position that the Legislature never intended for the Plaintiffs to be treated as domestic partners prior to their registration under the DPA on July 12, 2004. The Township did not specifically oppose giving the 100% veteran's exemption to the Plaintiffs, but rather merely questioned the authority to do so, based upon its long-standing interpretation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30, dating back to at least 1985.
The New Jersey Supreme Court makes clear that when deciding a motion for summary judgment,
the determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a material fact challenged requires the motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in consideration of the applicable evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.
[Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).] The intent of the court in Brill was to encourage the granting of a summary judgment motion when the non-moving party relies on implausible fact inferences and unsupported assertions. Id. at 541-42. The court in Brill further explained that "[i]f there exists a single, unavoidable resolution of the alleged disputed issue of fact, that issue should be considered insufficient to constitute a `genuine' issue of material fact for purposes of Rule 4:46-2." Id. at 540. With no material facts in dispute, the Court finds that the immediate matter is ripe for summary judgment.
At the center of the controversy in this matter is the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.30 to -3.33 (the "Exemption Statute"). The Exemption Statute provides in pertinent part that:
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 successor to have a service-connected disability ... or 100% permanent disability ..., or resulting from disease contracted while in such active service shall be exempt from taxation, on proper claim made therefor, and such exemption shall be in addition to any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial