Koch v. Jersey City

• Decision Date: 16 April 1937
• Docket Number: No. 224.,224.
• Parties: KOCH v. JERSEY CITY et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

191 A. 558

KOCH

v. JERSEY CITY et al.

No. 224.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 16, 1937.

Certiorari by Frank Koch against the City of Jersey City and the State Board of Tax Appeals. To review a judgment of the state board affirming tax assessments.

Judgments set aside.

Argued January term, 1937, before PARKER, LLOYD, and DONGES, JJ.

Herbert Clark Gilson, of Summit, for prosecutor. Joseph C. Glavin, of Jersey City, for defendants.

PARKER, Justice.

The prosecutor appealed the tax valuations for 1934 on several pieces of real estate in Jersey City. The County Board affirmed the assessments, and there were further appeals to the State Board. Testimony was taken before Commissioner Parkinson of the State Board, and returned to that board, which entered judgments that the several assessments be confirmed and the appeals dismissed. Six writs of certiorari were allowed, and all six cases were consolidated for the purpose of argument. One seems to be abandoned, but the others are argued on brief. A single case will indicate the points applicable to all.

Lot 22 E in block 1825 was valued for taxation as follows: Land, $4,700; improvements $4,100; total $8,800. The same method, with different amounts, was used as to the other four properties.

At the hearing before the commissioner, prosecutor called a real estate expert, who proceeded to place on the above lot a land value of $2,200 as of the taxing date. This was objected to on the ground that any valuation should be in a lump sum for the whole. Prosecutor claimed the right to produce evidence separately as to land and then as to improvements (or vice versa). The commissioner excluded any separation of the items in this regard as incompetent, and exception was entered. To shorten the hearing, the same ruling was entered in a general way as to the other properties over an offer to prove, and exception formally entered, though perhaps unnecessarily.

We consider that these rulings were erroneous. The Tax Act at least since 1903 has provided that: "The state board of taxation may by rule direct the assessor in any taxing district to determine the true value of each parcel of real estate assessed by him without the buildings and improvements and to note the same on his list, and to determine and note separately the true value of every building and other structure on each parcel, and add and carry out the same as the assessed value of the parcel, and in such case the receipt given for the payment of the tax shall contain such separate valuations." P.L.1903, p. 398, § 7 (4 Comp.St.1910, p. 5087, § 7), P.L.1918, p. 847, § 401, at page 860, P.L.1921, pp. 902, 903 (Comp.St.Supp.1924, § 208—66d(401), P.L. 1927, pp. 576, 577 (Comp.St.Supp.1930, § 208—66d(401), P.L.1932, pp. 309, 310 (N. J.St.Annual 1932, § 208—66d(401). A rule by the Board of Equalization of Taxes (predecessor of the present Board) adopted in 1905, and following the language of the statute as quoted above, appears as an exhibit in this case. It is common knowledge that throughout the state, valuations of real property are ascertained by valuing land and improvements separately and adding them for a total valuation ; and tax bills rendered and paid accordingly. If this is universal daily practice in making tax assessments, we are quite unable to see why those assessments, even if questioned as totals, may not be tested by the same method, i. e. of inquiry into the...