Jantzen v. Green Twp.

• Docket Number: 008224-2022,008229-2022
• Decision Date: 30 May 2023
• Parties: JANTZEN, GIUSEPPIN NINA & MATTHEW D., Plaintiffs, v. GREEN TOWNSHIP, Defendant.
• Court: Tax Court of New Jersey

1

JANTZEN, GIUSEPPIN NINA & MATTHEW D., Plaintiffs, v. GREEN TOWNSHIP, Defendant.

Nos. 008224-2022, 008229-2022

Tax Court of New Jersey

May 30, 2023

Kevin S. Englert for plaintiffs (The Englert Law Firm, L.L.C. attorneys).

Robert B. McBriar for defendant (Schenck, Price, Smith & King L.L.P., attorneys).

BIANCO, J.T.C

This formal opinion shall serve as the court's determination of a motion filed by plaintiffs Matthew Jantzen and Nina Giuseppin Jantzen ("Taxpayers") to change the small claims track designation assigned by the Tax Court Management Office ("TCMO") for both above-referenced docket numbers, to the standard track to secure more comprehensive discovery; and a cross-motion filed by defendant Green Township ("Green") for summary judgment to dismiss as untimely the added assessment appeal under docket number 008224-2022 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.11. These matters^[1] concern Taxpayers property located at 5 Sunny Lane, Township of Green, County of Sussex, and designated by the taxing district as Block 119, Lot 6 ("Subject Property").

For the reasons more specifically set forth herein, the court (1) grants Taxpayers' motion for a track change in both matters; and (2) denies Green's cross-motion for summary judgment in Docket No. 008224-2022 finding that (a) Green did not provide Taxpayers adequate notice of the added assessment, and (b) due process requires a relaxation of the filing deadline. The court addresses the dismissal of the cross-motion first.

I. Findings of Facts

For tax year 2021, the Subject Property was initially assessed at $243,100 according to the Property Record Card ("PRC").^[2] Taxpayers purchased the Subject Property on September 1, 2021, for $700,000. In March 2021, six months prior to said purchase, Green issued a permit for reconnection of electric service at the Subject Property. In April 2021, Green issued another permit for reconnection of electric services to a barn on the Subject Property. ^[3]

On October 5, 2021, the 2021 Added Assessment Tax List was filed with the Sussex County Board of Taxation ("County Board") as public record in which the name and address of the former owners were reflected. In said list, the owners of the Subject Property were identified as "Singe, Herbert R Jr & Belinda R." (the former owners), with the postal address of "11 Poplar CT Hackettstown, New Jersey, 07840," which is not the address of the Subject Property. The added assessment more than doubled the total assessment of the Subject Property to $592,900. Thereafter, the PRC reflects that the 2022 assessment on the Subject Property was set at $592,900.

On November 3, 2021, Taxpayers' mortgage company, Rocket Mortgage (or its loan servicer), paid the amount due for the added assessment without Taxpayers' knowledge. Green makes no representation that the notice of the added assessment on the Subject Property was ever mailed or delivered to either the previous owners (as listed on the 2021 Added Assessment Tax List), Taxpayers, or Rocket Mortgage. Green's Tax Collector ("Tax Collector") did not provide any certification herein to indicate where the bill for added assessment was sent, or if it was sent at all. The Tax Collector's required certification to the County Board "setting forth the date on which the bulk mailing [of the tax bills for added assessments] was completed," N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.11, does not exist.^[4]

Upon receipt of the 2022 annual notice of assessment, Taxpayers contacted Green's Tax Assessor to determine the reason for the increase in the assessment. Taxpayers were informed that the assessment was increased because they cleared debris from the Subject Property. At this point, Taxpayers were still unaware of the 2021 added assessment. Taxpayers timely filed an appeal of their 2022 property taxes.

Taxpayers never received actual notice of the added assessment until April 25, 2022, when Green provided them with the 2021 added assessment list as part of discovery in their 2022 tax appeal.

II. Procedural History

On May 2, 2022, Taxpayers filed an Added/Omitted Petition of Appeal with the County Board challenging the 2021 added assessment. On May 9, 2022, Taxpayers received a letter from the Sussex County Tax Administrator on County Board letterhead stating that their petition was returned because it was untimely filled (i.e., filed 152 days after the December 1, 2021, statutory filing deadline). There was no accompanying judgment of the County Board dismissing Taxpayer's complaint.^[5] On June 17, 2022, Taxpayers timely appealed to the Tax Court challenging the return of their 2021 added assessment petition due to untimely filing.

On September 30, 2022, Taxpayers filed a motion to change tracks to expand discovery in both hereinabove referenced matters. Taxpayers allege four counts against Green, including a spot assessment claim, and a claim to compel Green to conduct a full revaluation of all property within the taxing district. On November 8, 2022, Green filed a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the court complaint (Docket No. 008229-2022 only) challenging Green's 2021 added assessment due to untimely filing.

III. Applicable Law

A. Summary Judgment

A motion for summary judgment should be granted in the absence of genuine issues of material facts. R. 4:46-2(c); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 528-29 (1995) (summary judgment will be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law."). Denial is appropriate only where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could return a finding favorable to the party opposing the motion. Brill, 142 N.J. at 540.

B. Added Assessment Filing

Our courts have held regarding annual assessments that the "timeliness of a tax appeal is critical." Prime Accounting Dept. v. Township of Carney's Point, 212 N.J. 493, 507 (2013). The "[f]ailure to file a timely appeal pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-21[] . . . is a fatal jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the complaint." Regent Care Ctr. v. City of Hackensack, 18 N.J. Tax 320, 324 (Tax 1999).

Failure to file a timely complaint divests this court of jurisdiction even in the absence of harm to the municipality. Lawrenceville Garden Apartments v. Twp. Of Lawrence, 14 N.J. Tax 285, 288 (App. Div. 1994). In tax matters, strict adherence to statutory filing deadlines is of particular concern given the "exigencies of taxation and the administration of local government." F.M.C. Stores v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 424 (1985) (citing Princeton Univ. Press v. Borough of Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214 (1961)). "The policy of applying strict time limitations to tax matters is based upon the very nature of our administrative tax structure." Galloway Twp. v. Petkevis, 2 N.J. Tax 85, 92 (Tax 1980).

However, with added assessments (as well as omitted assessments), the failure to strictly adhere to statutory filing deadlines is less consequential given that the municipality does not anticipate any revenue derived from added and omitted assessments as they go through the budgeting process for the administration of local government. As with added assessments, "[a] municipality does not rely on the collection of omitted taxes unknown during the budget process to operate its government or meet its expenses in the tax year in which the omitted assessment is imposed." BDB Enterprises, LLC v. Brick Twp., 16 N.J. Tax 22, 26 (Tax 1996), (citing Inwood Owners v. Little Falls Twp., 216 N.J.Super. 485, 490 (App. Div. 1987)), cert. denied, 108 N.J. 184 (1987), (citing Schneider v. East Orange, 196 N.J.Super. 587, 593 (App. Div. 1984), aff'd o.b., 103 N.J. 115, cert. denied 479 U.S. 824 (1986). "In terms of the legal and fiscal effects there is no difference between [added and omitted] assessments." BDB Enterprises, LLC, 16 N.J. Tax at 26.

N.J.S.A 54:4-63.7 provides:

As soon as the added assessment duplicate is delivered to the collector of the taxing district, he shall at once begin the work of preparing, completing, mailing or otherwise delivering the tax bills to the individuals assessed for added assessments and shall complete that work at least one week before November first. The validity of any added tax or assessment or the time at which it shall be payable shall not be affected by the failure of a taxpayer to receive a tax bill, but every taxpayer is put upon notice to ascertain from the proper official of the taxing district the amount which may be due for taxes or assessments against him or his property for added assessments.

[N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.7.]^[6]

N.J.S.A 54:4-63.11 provides in pertinent part:

Appeals from added assessments may be made to the county board of taxation on or before December 1 of the year of levy, or 30 days from the date the collector of the taxing district completes the bulk mailing of tax bills for added assessments, whichever is later…Within ten days of the completion of the bulk mailing of tax bills for added assessments, the collector of the taxing district shall file with the county board of taxation a certification setting forth date on which the bulk mailing was completed.

[N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.11, emphasis added.]

The Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.11 on September 17 1999. S.N. 673 (1999). The amendment, among other language, added the above-emphasized language to N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.11. Previously, said statute only allowed for added assessment appeals on or before December 1. Additionally, the statute did not require the tax collector to certify the bulk mailing of the tax bills, nor did it provide...