Lecross Associates v. City Partners

• Decision Date: 04 May 1979
• Citation: 401 A.2d 1099,168 N.J.Super. 96
• Parties: LECROSS ASSOCIATES, a limited partnership, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY PARTNERS, Lac, Gerald Guterman, Jerry Steiner, Certified Management Corporation and Borough of Fort Lee, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 96

168 N.J.Super. 96

401 A.2d 1099

LECROSS ASSOCIATES, a limited partnership, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY PARTNERS, Lac, Gerald Guterman, Jerry Steiner Certified Management Corporation and Borough of Fort Lee, Defendants-Appellants.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued April 9, 1979.

Decided May 4, 1979.

Jonathan N. Harris, Elmwood Park, argued the cause for defendant-appellant Borough of Fort Lee (Andora, Palmisano, De Cotiis & Harris, Elmwood Park, attorneys, Anthony D. Andora, Elmwood Park, of counsel).

Jay W. Greenstone, Hackensack, argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent Lecross Associates (Greenstone & Sokol, Hackensack, attorneys, Joseph F. Behot, Jr., Hackensack, on the brief).

No briefs were filed for defendants-appellants City Partners, Lac, Gerald Guterman, Jerry Steiner and Certified Management Corporation.

Before Judges HALPERN, ARD and ANTELL.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff is the ground lessee of real property which was assessed for tax purposes at $6,878,800 by intervenor-defendant Borough of Fort Lee for the 1977 tax year. On this basis a tax liability arose in the amount of $168,530.60. By judgment dated November 15, 1977 the assessment was reduced by the Bergen County Board of Taxation to $3,564,000 and the tax liability correspondingly lowered to $87,318. On December 14, 1977 an appeal, now pending, was taken therefrom by the borough to the State Division of Tax Appeals.

The narrow question before us on the borough's appeal from an order of the Chancery Division granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying the borough's is whether the judgment of the Bergen County Board of Taxation is void for lack of jurisdiction because of plaintiff's failure to pay the borough's tax collector 90% Of the taxes originally assessed against it, as required by N.J.S.A. 54:3-27. The language of that statute for the year in question read as follows:

A taxpayer who shall file an appeal from an assessment against him shall pay to the collector of the taxing district no less than 90% Of the taxes assessed against him in the manner prescribed in R.S. 54:4-66 even though his petition to the Tax Appeal Board might request a reduction in excess of 10% Of the taxes assessed for the full year. The collector shall accept such amount, when tendered, give a receipt therefor and credit the taxpayer therewith, and the taxpayer shall have the benefit of the same rate of discount on the amount paid as he would have on the whole amount.

Prior to its amendment in 1975 the enactment in question provided only that an appealing taxpayer "may pay to the collector of the taxing district such portion of the taxes assessed against him as he would be required to pay if his appeal were sustained." Upon payment the municipality was thereafter generally barred from pursuing tax foreclosure proceedings pending disposition of the tax appeals. West Orange v. Block 107, 162 N.J.Super. 314, 316, 392 A.2d 1213 (App.Div.1978); General Electric Co. v. Passaic, 48 N.J.Super. 604, 606, 138 A.2d 545 (Ch.Div.1958); Rice v. Newark, 136 N.J.Eq. 53, 55, 40 A.2d 13 (Ch.1944). The objects of the 1975 amendment are stated in the following language taken from the Senate Revenue, Finance and Appropriations Committee Statement to Assembly Bill, No. 1276:

Assembly Bill 1276 OCR proposes to amend and supplement the property tax appeal process as concerns payment of taxes.

The existing provisions of the appeal process with regard to payment of taxes are amended to require the payment of 90 percent of taxes assessed against a taxpayer as a prereuqisite (sic) to an appeal. Current provisions (R.S. 54:3-27) provide that a taxpayer may pay the taxes he would be required to pay if his appeal were sustained. There are cases where a taxpayer with a substantial tax liability will file an appeal and pay the taxes he feels are reasonable, as represented in the appeal, and this creates a financial hardship for the tax district involved. In other cases groups of taxpayers will file appeals, especially when a revaluation has occurred, in aggregate representing a substantial tax liability, and again a financial hardship is created for the tax district. In recommending this bill, the Committee takes cognizance of both the taxpayers' and the tax districts' problem with the property tax valuation and collection process. On the...